bump
bump
Here are the four primary problems as I see them, from the test of the article:
1.)But Swing said the problem was just recently brought to his attention, and that only a small percentage of the 11,000 U.N. personnel in Congo were involved.
"A few people have managed to basically cause disgrace for the mission and for the U.N., and that's why we're determined to conquer it. I have sent a dozen home," Swing said.
>>Okay we have 11,000 troops stationed and a dozen are sent home. Presumably there are more guilty parties whose involvement will be revealed, but for right now that is more than 1 in 1,000 who were party to this depravity. And all he has done is send them HOME!? I am sure the offended/injured Congolese feel much better that "only a small percentage..." ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
By extension the same percentage of U.S./coalition force involvement in scandalous acts within Iraq would lead us to have expected over 170 soldiers to have been implicated, out of some 160,000 or more troops. Instead, there seems to have been, at most, one or two dozen such rotten eggs. Those principals have been taken into custody, investigated, charged, and some already prosecuted and punished according to the U.C.M.J. No free trips home here!
In fairness that should be taken as a clear proof that we both set, and successfully adhere to, higher standards of behaviour. So then, I want to know: where is the loud and vitriolic hew and cry from Sen.'s Kennedy, Reid, Kerry, Boxer, Schumer, Pelosi, et al over this U.N. travesty to match the tone and tenor of their caterwauling about Abu Ghraib? Thus far, their silence is absolutely shamefully DEAFENING!<<
2.)Men from roughly 50 different countries make up the U.N. forces in Congo, and the United Nations does not conduct background checks. Furthermore, U.N. troops are exempt from prosecution in Congo.
>>This is, in my opinion, the uppermost problem. United States military personnel are held to the U.C.M.J. unflinchingly. Before they ever take their oath of service, their backgrounds are clearly known. When posted at duty stations abroad, if they commit a crime, their service branch retains the option to not only prosecute them under the military code, but also to turn them over under specified conditions to face the laws of the country in which the offense was committed - whichever is generally deemed more apropos.
U.N. troops, however, apparently get a free pass upon joining up with the blue-helmet brigade of brigands. No background check - no knowledge of possible criminal acts, or patterns. Once in, they gain an alarming degree of immunity. In the absence of accountability, they behave in a deplorable manner, knowing they are fully immune from prosecution, and probably most any other consequences of their actions.<<
3.)Another gaping problem U.N. officials failed to address is the hundreds of babies born to Congolese women and fathered by U.N. personnel.
>>Okay - just let me get this straight: One dozen men - maybe two dozen - have left behind literally hundreds of babies, the majority of them born to girls in their early or middle teens, and many of the babies the result of RAPE? That is a frighteningly prolific rate of procreation by "only a small percentage" of these 11,000 soldiers. I have to ask: Just when in the H*LL did they have time to do ANY actual soldiering?!<<
4.)And as of now, the United Nations said it will not take direct responsibility for babies abandoned by its troops, though Swing said the mission is "currently looking at a way to have a clearer and more viable paternity policy."
>>Why am I NOT SURPRISED at all? After all, the U.N. only,
a)hired these erstwhile mercenaries at a premium without investigating any of them,
b)stationed them amongst a war-torn, starving, impoverished and vulnerable population, primarily composed of women and children
c)issued them uniforms, weapons, salaries, and food, thus giving them authority and power with the stamp and expectation of legitimacy,
d)completely exempted them from prosecution in that country, thus insulating them from responsibility, and permitting all possible bad behaviours unchecked by natural consequences.
Just what DID they really expect to happen? Oh, and one more question: What exactly is a "clearer and more viable paternity policy", and why are they only "looking at a way" to have one, rather than swiftly and arbitrarily instituting one?!
I know, I must be hallucinating, right? One thing I am certain of - if these were U.S. troops in any country at twice the troop strength presently in Iraq, and half as many bad actors and documented abuses - the Liberal party would be HOWLING for scalps from the guilty all the way through the chain of command to the SecDef and even the President. They would also be busily asserting that such a thing would never have occurred if they were in charge.
Coffee Banana needs to go. He has been the head of the UN way to log.
Hanging is too good for this scum.
This breaks my heart. The UN should be disolved now!
Hey, these UN sons-of-bitches didn't ask us if we also wanted to rape little Congolese girls!
A clear violation of UN protocol.
With a title like that, we expect pics..
;)
Humiliation is always wrong, no matter who's doing it.
Trading in sex has been a regular thing with these UN peacekeeping missions for years. It has occasionally been discussed, but this is the first time that it has broken out into the open and acknowledge (though very grudgingly) by the media.
What else can you expect. Many of the peacekeeping forces come from backward nations with thugs as leaders. And the French are probably worse, because although they call themselves civilized and mouth all the politically correct words, they really regard the Africans as subhuman primitives. They are only in Africa for the mineral wealth and the profits.
The UN peacekeepers in Kosovo have also indulged in sex trafficking, according to earlier reports.
But the United Nations is a surreal institution in a surreal world. I believe it's untouchable, unreachable and indestructable by humans.
Too bad Rod Serling isn't still alive and writing.
Leni
When I first read about this story in a London Times article, I didn't ever think it would see the light of day in the US media, so ABC deserves some credit for doing a report on it.
Will we ever see it in the New York Times or the Washington Post? Maybe on page A23, if at all.
As the US stands accountable in the court of public opinion for the actions of its soldiers, so should the rest of the world.
The above quote is from a government spokesman in Eritrea, a somewhat benevolent East African dictatorship which has been esentially forced to allow the presence of peacekeepers. Eritrea seems to be one of the few countries that actually cares enough about its people to kick out peacekeepers found to engage in dishonorable romantic involvements.
And to think that we still insist on remaining a member of this corrupt organization. What does it say about us?
The only positive aspect is that this disgraceful behavior by UN employees could serve as another in the long list of reasons the US should get out of the UN.
We don't need the UN. Get 'em the hell out of here.