International Politics Thread

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]The UN needs to do something, fast.... Seriously, what is up what the sex crimes.

Wake me up when you go for the sexual abuses in Iraq in the same way.

I can remember a freight container that had some windows cut in that served as a "whorehouse" for malayan troops.

While it isn´t especially smart to have sex with locals who are over 70 percent infected with AIDS, it´s a matter of reality that there are sexual activities going on with military operations. Noone is immune to that. But every nation has to fight those things within their troops. It´s not the UN to get the soldiers where they should stand. Such interference with internal military matters wouldn´t be accepted.

Would be the same if Iraq security forces would lock up coaltion guys, who have sexually abused prisoners of war or innocent people who got arrested by accident.

malaysians are pretty brainsick anyway. Fact is that in Thailand a large percentage of prostitution doesnt come from western tourists but from malaysian muslims that cross the border to find some pleisure .. and at home they preach and practive Islam.. suuuuure!

But concerning Thailand the american forces werent so much better. There is a reason why carriers stop by in Thailand... and MPs are strict on behaviour but that doesnt include soldiers sleeping with prostitutes.. Seen them coming ashore with just one intention in mind!

For my own defense I have to say I had a "normal" girlfriend in Thailand working in a neighbouring hotel in Marketing! She even did buddhist meditation every 3rd day!  

[EiZei 0]

I think that the UN has some responsibility.. After all it's they who sent the troops there. Appearantly these soldiers were not fit for the job.

Hmm, I thought it was national goverment's job to check if their troopers are suitable?

[kerosene 0]

Yeah, there soldiers and cops from different countries, theres gonna be bad ones in any big sample, there was a big prostitution ring being run in Kosovo too.

[mattxr 9]

tutut who started this thred about bloody Politics lmao

[llauma 0]

I think that the UN has some responsibility.. After all it's they who sent the troops there. Appearantly these soldiers were not fit for the job.

Hmm, I thought it was national goverment's job to check if their troopers are suitable?

That's true but it's also the UN's responsibility to check that the people countries send are fit for the job. Or do you mean that they shouldn't care at all about what kind of people countries send because it's the countries responsibility?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The UN needs to do something, fast.... Seriously, what is up what the sex crimes.

Wake me up when you go for the sexual abuses in Iraq in the same way.

I can remember a freight container that had some windows cut in that served as a "whorehouse" for malayan troops.

While it isn´t especially smart to have sex with locals who are over 70 percent infected with AIDS, it´s a matter of reality that there are sexual activities going on with military operations. Noone is immune to that. But every nation has to fight those things within their troops. It´s not the UN to get the soldiers where they should stand. Such interference with internal military matters wouldn´t be accepted.

Would be the same if Iraq security forces would lock up coaltion guys, who have sexually abused prisoners of war or innocent people who got arrested by accident.

And join you on the crusade against coalition troops in Iraq bus... I think not. Yes, I want people found guilty who committed serious crimes in jail (Iraq). You be up in arms calling the US authorities names if the abu people did not get jail time and discharges that will feck up their lives from now on. Where is your outcry for this? Oh, their just bad soldiers. Sexual abuse isn't anything.

[kerosene 0]

"Sexual abuse isn't anything"

I hope you mean its not a huge issue in Iraq...

In practical terms, how would the U.N verify the character of troops and police that were selected as peacekeepers?

They've only really got that nations records to go on, so if the soldier hasn't got caught doing anything, or hasn't had the oppurtunity, then theres no way of knowing whos good or bad.

[EiZei 0]

I think that the UN has some responsibility.. After all it's they who sent the troops there. Appearantly these soldiers were not fit for the job.

Hmm, I thought it was national goverment's job to check if their troopers are suitable?

That's true but it's also the UN's responsibility to check that the people countries send are fit for the job. Or do you mean that they shouldn't care at all about what kind of people countries send because it's the countries responsibility?

Well, they do not have such access to the soldier's complete records for obvious reasons.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]And join you on the crusade against coalition troops in Iraq bus... I think not.

Crusade against coalition troops ?

To discuss wrongdoings of US troops and US administration that results in the killing of 20,000 - 100,000 civillians for false purposes is called a "Crusade against coalition troops" ?

I guess you should be smart enough to know that you can´t really put a context on this, neither by content nor by international significance.

I guess it should give you abright flash if you google on "US military sexual abuse". Just for your ambitions for ultimate justice.

The UN has no deciding role in the troop-selection process. Neither are they able to keep track of military records, nor are they able to check the personel in service.

It´s a matter of the countries the soldiers originate from. Not the UN´s business.

You should know that and not try to go for a funny "bash the UN" stunt again.

Activate brain - type text.

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]The UN needs to do something, fast.... Seriously, what is up what the sex crimes.

How is this UNs fault in any way?

I think that the UN has some responsibility.. After all it's they who sent the troops there. Appearantly these soldiers were not fit for the job.

Maybe everyone should follow the US example by not sending any troops at all and when they do it's totally under US control so any scandal could be covered up or minimized.

These things will always occur.. The only thing we can and must do is to see that those responsible get the punishment they deserve.

Yeah that's it. PUt them under UN control and all such nasty behavior will disappear because US troops are saints and morally upright Christians right? Its not like US troops have done anything like shoot civilians, had sex with them, or torture them. Nah man, we freak'n angels!

Anyways... The Bush administration HATES the UN. The extreme right in America believe the UN is trying to take over the world and trying to force international law over US law. I just had a big long debate with someone yesterday on this issue who was foaming at the mouth in his hatred for the UN and believes that the anti-christ will lead the UN to take over the world.

Sadly alot of Americans believe that or something close to that and want to destroy the UN.

Any scandal is just one more nail in the coffin of the UN.

But if the UN dies if the US pulls out of it, I think they will find themselves facing the unmediated bullshit of the EU, Russia, and China in a big way...and long for the good ol' days of UN mediation and sanctions.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]I just had a big long debate with someone yesterday on this issue who was foaming at the mouth in his hatred for the UN and believes that the anti-christ will lead the UN to take over the world.

Ahahaha OMG i am foaming at my mouth now with laughter

Quote[/b] ]The UN has no deciding role in the troop-selection process. Neither are they able to keep track of military records, nor are they able to check the personel in service.

It´s a matter of the countries the soldiers originate from. Not the UN´s business.

You should know that and not try to go for a funny "bash the UN" stunt again.

Then i think the UN needs to reshape their policy in this regard. If they dont have a say in it then who does? The countries who send them have to have some sort of criteria or standard to judge these sort of acts and who better to set this then the UN? Otherwise i am left wondering whats the use of the UN here?

[Balschoiw 0]

The governments themselves train, select and send units to UN missions. And that is self-explanatory.

UN set´s up requirenments for an operation but they hand over the local selection and training to local governments and military planners.

It would make no sense to deploy a UN team to every unit that is sent or trained for a UN mission. It´s logistically impossible and would not be accepted by local military forces for well known reasons. Military issues and methods of training are not a UN matter as they are no matter for anyone outside the local military and governmental structure.

Therefore it´s plain stupid to ask for such.

People who did things wrong during a UN mission were held accountable for their wrongdoings according to their military law or local government law. The international criminal court can also handle such wrongdoings, in case the nation the troops originate from, signed the treaty.

The UN has to rely on their troop contributing members to train and control their troops in a law-obiding way.

This is how it´s handled and a few wrongdoings do not justify to reverse the whole system. The effect would be that a lot of countries would think twice before they decide to send UN troops, as the UN would start to mangle with their internal affairs wich would not be accepted.

[kerosene 0]

Quote[/b] ]Then i think the UN needs to reshape their policy in this regard. If they dont have a say in it then who does? The countries who send them have to have some sort of criteria or standard to judge these sort of acts and who better to set this then the UN? Otherwise i am left wondering whats the use of the UN here?

The U.N isn't in a position to make demands, they'd probably find that some countries would'nt send troops if he U.N insisted on having masses of information turned over to them prior.

The U.S has been the backbone of a bunch of U,N missons, are they likley to want to turn over all this info to U.N?

Misconduct usually been more of an issue for the nation suppplying the troops anyway, there were numerous incidents in Somalia and they were dealt with by theose nations without anyone demanding the U.N fix it.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]numerous incidents in Somalia

Can we agree on "some" pls ?

Somalia was basically a melting pot of UN forces from all over this planet. I guess 24 countries sent troops there. I mean, hey that was a bunch of guys there collected from all over the planet.

Not some 2 nation-drill. A lot of that led to the things that happened there. There were the canadians roping up some at Camp Rusk, some crazy italian tank drivers , funny helopilots and all that stuff that comes with 6.000 men and women serving the greater goal that never was specified , neither for Unosom 1 nor 2.

We were basically left somewhere in between all that funk that happened there. Refugees here, looting mob there, triggerhappy soldiers, weird technical-drivers, broken down support convois by Brown & Roots and all that and mismanagement of troops and a surpriisingly long stay there for some lead to all that "ball of confusion" we´ve seen there.

It was a mission that showed one thing: Cooperation among different troop contingents from different nations is possible, but has to be achieved by a centralized military operation authority at the UN.

The UN needs an official ministry of intervene, where military operations can be directed and coordinated from one source. That would make the UN military operations the power, it needed to be to work effective, even under the burden of a multinational military pool. I guess it will never come that far, but think about it.

It would be good and make things much easier sometimes.

And before the screams fire off: No, the UN does not plan to attack the USA

[denoir 0]

Anyways...  The Bush administration HATES the UN.  The extreme right in America believe the UN is trying to take over the world and trying to force international law over US law.

The Bush administration doesn't hate the UN per se - it hates the fact that it can't quite control it. The same way as they don't hate the ICC - on the contrary, they are putting some heavy economic and political pressure on certain countries to cooperate with the war crimes tribunal. They just don't want it to come in the way of UN interest.

Now a lot of the criticism directed at the UN, the ICC etc are very justified. These are to a certain degree rotten, corrupt organizations where every member has its own political agenda. This is of course applies to every large organization. If you have many different interests and a large bureaucracy, you'll soon smell the stench of corruption. It's a fact of life.

It is also a fact of life that it's the best we have and we can't live without it. Economics, politics, military conflict - today it's all global. We have to have some form of a international framework. It's not some hippie dream of a united world, but a raw necessity. Without supra-national organizations, the global economy would collapse. We would have an insane amount of instability and chaos.

Also worth noting is that in principle the international organizations are usually founded on sound principles. The problem is with the members who use and abuse them to push their own agenda. And I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Bush administration doesn't hate the UN per se - it hates the fact that it can't quite control it.

I assume you know who the new US ambassador to the UN is? Would you still the US doesnt hates the UN? This guy John Bolton once said " It wouldnt matter if the 39 story building of UN lost 10 floors "

Another neat appointment by Bush.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The UN has no deciding role in the troop-selection process. Neither are they able to keep track of military records, nor are they able to check the personel in service.

It´s a matter of the countries the soldiers originate from. Not the UN´s business.

You should know that and not try to go for a funny "bash the UN" stunt again.

Activate brain - type text.

I guess you didn't activate your brain when you post those false pictures. I guess that would make you a liar like Bush is, eh? Anyway, where the hell did I bash the UN? Seriously, get off your high horse. I simply put why doesn't the UN do something about it....this sexual abuse has happened before. Some of those nation's troops actions go against what the UN does/stand for and they (UN) just sit their.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I guess you didn't activate your brain when you post those false pictures. I guess that would make you a liar like Bush is, eh?

This only shows me what a lousy debater you are. Go personal when you run out of debateable stuff.

You know what ? I just don´t care, because I am right with what I say and every 5th grader should know that.

Quote[/b] ]Seriously, get off your high horse.

Where am I on the high horse ?

Because I post what is fact ?

You insult for the lack of debateable facts.

Keep it coming.

For the last time:

What should the UN do ?

They have no method of interfering, they can accuse and investigate, but they don´t control the contingent military units, neithewr have they the right to accuse those soldiers as this is done by the contributing military on their own.

Is that so hard to get, or do you just miss the UN slogan in it then ?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I guess you didn't activate your brain when you post those false pictures. I guess that would make you a liar like Bush is, eh?

This only shows me what a lousy debater you are. Go personal when you run out of debateable stuff.

You know what ? I just don´t care, because I am right with what I say and every 5th grader should know that.

Quote[/b] ]Seriously, get off your high horse.

Where am I on the high horse ?

Because I post what is fact ?

You insult for the lack of debateable facts.

Keep it coming.

For the last time:

What should the UN do ?

They have no method of interfering, they can accuse and investigate, but they don´t control the contingent military units, neithewr have they the right to accuse those soldiers as this is done by the contributing military on their own.

Is that so hard to get, or do you just miss the UN slogan in it then ?

I guess...

Quote[/b] ]Activate brain - type text.

etc... isn't trying to go personal.

Quote[/b] ]Where am I on the high horse ?

Because I post what is fact ?

You insult for the lack of debateable facts.

Excuse me? You are one the that throws insults aganist me. I usually do not respond to them (ie. calling me a smartass and etc.) but now you get all defensive when I respond back in kind. Oh, you are on your high horse when you reply to my post by inserting a insult that comes from nowhere and then you get it wrong on what I'm thinking about (ie. bashing the UN).

Anyway, I can't help they do not have the authority to truly do something but I can comment about those actions can go against what the UN stand for. I should stop posting anything negative that happens under the UN flag to please you.

[ralphwiggum 6]

must i intervene?

[billybob2002 0]

must i intervene?

No, but you need to fix your sig. I will not tell you the problem because I wish to kill you (check your links). Just having a friendly chat.

Anyway, speaking about the UN...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....x_abuse

Quote[/b] ]

AP: UN Report Offers Rape Prevention Ideas

1 hour, 14 minutes ago   U.S. National - AP

By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - A new United Nations (news - web sites) report on sex abuse by peacekeepers describes the U.N. military arm as dysfunctional and recommends requiring nations to pursue legal action against perpetrators, according to the report's author.

The recommendation for legal action and several others in the report, to be released Thursday, come after repeated accusations that peacekeepers exploited the very people they were sent to protect.

Abuse allegations have dogged peacekeeping missions since they began 50 years ago, but the issue was thrust into the spotlight last year when the United Nations revealed it was pursuing some 150 claims against peacekeepers in Congo — including reports that they had sex with Congolese women and girls, usually in exchange for food or small sums of money.

"You cannot understate the value of peacekeeping and what it can bring to a society, so for that reason I think we must restore it," Prince Zeid al Hussein, Jordan's U.N. ambassador and the report's author, told The Associated Press.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) appointed Zeid, who once served as a peacekeeper in Bosnia, to study the Congo abuses and propose changes to keep it from happening again.

One of his key tasks was finding ways to hold peacekeepers more accountable in a system where the United Nations has few legal means to take action and those accused of wrongdoing are often sent home and never punished.

The task is especially troublesome because the United Nations does not want to risk offending nations that provide badly needed peacekeepers.

In the last several months, Zeid has discussed his proposals with nations that contribute the most troops — such as Pakistan, Morocco, Brazil and Bangladesh — and those that fund missions, like the United States.

"My feeling is that most of the principal troop contributing countries will agree to this formula," he said.

Zeid described a peacekeeping system that has become fundamentally flawed.

U.N. peacekeeping missions comprise both soldiers and civilians who are held to different standards of conduct, Zeid said. Investigators appointed to probe crimes often don't feel qualified to handle the cases, he said.

And sometimes troops and civilians fail to understand the complexities of the countries where they are deployed.

"There are at least some people in peacekeeping who perceive it as almost a form of camping," he said. "You can forget how wounded and traumatized the people you're working with are. You can make assumptions that you're entering into a normal, consensual relationship if you're a civilian staff member and often those assumptions may be misguided."

One recommendation of the report is that militaries court martial soldiers accused of wrongdoing in the country where the claims were made. The United Nations could also withhold salaries for peacekeepers found guilty, putting the money in a fund for victims.

Another asks that nations agree to refer cases to national courts for prosecution if a U.N. investigation finds their peacekeepers committed abuse, Zeid said.

Currently, U.N. troops and employees accused of wrongdoing are sent home to be dealt with by their own government but are often never punished.

The report recommends strengthening the United Nations' ability to investigate allegations by giving it access to modern technology like DNA- and fiber-analysis, Zeid said. Investigators would have increased training.

With the United Nations burdened by scandals including oil-for-food and allegations of sexual harassment by staff, officials have sought to deal with the peacekeeper sex abuse issue quickly.

The U.S. Congress is also looking into the issue, and Rep. Christopher Smith (news, bio, voting record), R-N.J., has proposed a bill that would require troop-contributing nations to have codes of conduct in place. Otherwise, the United States would withhold funding for missions.

Zeid set 2007 as a target date to complete many of his proposals.

[Balschoiw 0]

Interesting to read that support falls short when the ICC is mentioned.

The USA doesn´t seem to be worried anymore...Sudan genocide...who cares.

Let´s block some resolutions, shall we ?

Quote[/b] ]UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - France is to put to a vote on Thursday a U.N. resolution referring Sudanese war crimes cases to the International Criminal Court, daring Washington to cast an embarrassing veto or accept a tribunal it opposes.

After weeks of haggling on a comprehensive resolution on Sudan, the U.N. Security Council has been deadlocked on where to try perpetrators of atrocities in the country's western region of Darfur.

On Wednesday, France's U.N. ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, introduced a draft resolution that would refer Darfur cases to the ICC, the world's first permanent criminal court, as recommended by a U.N. panel of experts in January.

But the United States offered to create a new U.N.-African Union tribunal in Tanzania that has drawn little support, with several council members arguing that only the ICC already has investigators on staff ready to begin work.

The Bush administration objects to this court, set up in The Hague (news - web sites) to try war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. It fears U.S. citizens could face politically motivated prosecutions.

However, a U.S. veto could send a signal to Sudan that its officials, militia leaders and rebels were safe from punishment in Darfur, where fighting is escalating, tens of thousands have been killed and some 2 million people have been herded into squalid camps.

Uncertain yet is whether nine Security Council members will vote in favor of the ICC, the minimum needed to adopt a resolution in the 15-member council. If there are not enough votes, the United States would be spared a veto.

On Wednesday, diplomats believed at least 10 countries supported the French draft. Nine council members have ratified the treaty creating the ICC -- Argentina, Benin, Brazil, Britain, Denmark, France, Greece, Romania and Tanzania.

The Bush administration, in the forefront of trying to get action on Sudan, sought to break the deadlock on Tuesday by splitting its original resolution into three.

The first one, expected to be adopted on Thursday afternoon, would establish a 10,000-strong peacekeeping force to monitor a January peace accord between Khartoum and southern rebels that ended a 21-year old civil war.

The second one would call for a tough arms embargo and impose travel and an assets freeze against individuals still to be named. But China, Russia and Algeria oppose this.

The third draft offered options for future discussion on where to try cases: the ICC, the U.S.-proposed Tanzania tribunal, or an African panel for "justice and reconciliation" suggested recently by Nigeria.

Let some genocide guys get away for political interests.

Quote[/b] ]Excuse me? You are one the that throws insults aganist me.

Insults ? No I only try to point you into the right direction. That´s what I tried with the above posts.

I guess they contain a lot of info.

Quote[/b] ]but now you get all defensive when I respond back in kind.

Defensive ? I have nothing to defend, so why go defensive ?

I just write what I know. If you think that´s defensive, it´s your view, but not mine.

Quote[/b] ]Oh, you are on your high horse when you reply to my post by inserting a insult that comes from nowhere and then you get it wrong on what I'm thinking about (ie. bashing the UN).

You are not bashing the UN ? You never did here, right ?

And if you feel insulted by "read, then type" you have to be a very weak and sensible guy, wich I can´t see when reading your personally insulting posts.

Again, I only posted about the legal situation of UN missions today and how such cases were and are handled in the past and present.

What is insulting there ?

If the content is insulting for you, I can´t help.

Quote[/b] ]I should stop posting anything negative that happens under the UN flag to please you.

No, you should check the facts before you post utter nonsense.

There are measures that are taken when UN troops do something wrong. It has always been that way. It´s not that they are running around without any legal boundaries. I already posted that the country itself is responsible for bringing those to justice who fail during UN missions. This is status quo.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Insults ? No I only try to point you into the right direction. That´s what I tried with the above posts.

I guess they contain a lot of info.

Other times (ie. look in the Iraq thread...mostly notable the smartass comment)

Quote[/b] ]Defensive ? I have nothing to defend, so why go defensive ?

I just write what I know. If you think that´s defensive, it´s your view, but not mine.

Don't go personal!!

Quote[/b] ]And if you feel insulted by "read, then type" you have to be a very weak and sensible guy, wich I can´t see when reading your personally insulting posts.

Look above

Quote[/b] ]No, you should check the facts before you post utter nonsense.

There are measures that are taken when UN troops do something wrong. It has always been that way. It´s not that they are running around without any legal boundaries. I already posted that the country itself is responsible for bringing those to justice who fail during UN missions. This is status quo.

How I'm posting utter nonsense? I post utter nonsense because the UN can't do a thing but are now trying to do some reforms. Furthermore, they even admitted it's dysfunctional. No utter bs but facts.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Other times (ie. look in the Iraq thread...mostly notable the smartass comment)

So ? What is the relevance here ?

None.

And yes I do stand by that anyway as the "truth" you repeadetly tried to feed us in the Iraq thread turned out to be a lot of made-up TBA stuff.

Nethertheless this has nothing to do with this thread, where you said:

Quote[/b] ]Excuse me? You are one the that throws insults aganist me.

Wich is a really funny claim.

I guess if we summed up what you had to say on the actual matter we´ll end up with 2 or 3 lines.

That shows how much interest there is on your side to actually discuss the matter...

I extensively replied to the matter and laid out how such issues are handled. This was taken as a personal insult by you.

Sorry, but I fail to see your motivation in bringing that all up, other than to make a quick shot at the UN and then hide behind insult-claims that are unfounded and don´t distract from the actual lack of knowledge you have on how the UN and their troop contributing members do handle legal issues.

If you bypass debating by making personal insults, you only show how fixed you are on making fast points, wich will not work with a basic background knowledge on the issue itself.

Debate facts, that´s what the thread is meant for.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So ? What is the relevance here ?

None.

No, proving a point that you usually throw the insults and not me. Let me dig up why you called me a smartass... I guess being called a smartass is like activate brain by you.

Taken from my post in the Iraq thread:

Quote[/b] ]

You need to stop spamming.

After you just post the same thing. You were wrong because you assumed that I was using the american info and not the Italian.

You are assuming that I'm bashing the UN and I'm not. You can't get that through your head for some weird reason. I do not throw a blanket on the situation at hand like you do on some situations:

Taken from one of your post in Iraq thread:

Quote[/b] ]If you transport this incident to the general Iraqi situation you´ll know that the coalition forces in service act anything but effective or professional.

What are the coalition forces then? All +100k.

Anyway, I'm suprised that you are not saying anything about peacekeeping force(s) being dysfunctional by a report written by the UN staff. You would likely be jumping up and down if it said the coalition force in Iraq is dysfunctional. Furthermore, why should I type something about the ways the UN can fix the problem at hand but they already have the ideas and there is a news piece that covers it (case in point.... UN Report Offers Rape Prevention Ideas). Finally, using your logic about me bashing the UN because of a news piece, you enjoy bashing the US because of the news pieces you post.

End of discussion on that matter because of the evil mods... You reply, thou..