NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Totally unacceptable. I realize that some of you will object to my even posting this, but it's from the New York Times, and very reliable information. Your thoughts?


Aid Workers Are Said to Abuse Girls (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/world/africa/09liberia.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By SARAH LYALL
Published: May 9, 2006
LONDON, May 8 — Liberian girls as young as 8 are being sexually exploited by United Nations peacekeepers, aid workers and teachers in return for food, small favors and even rides in trucks, according to a new report from Save the Children U.K.

The report said the problem was widespread throughout Liberia, a small country struggling to get back on its feet after a long and bloody civil war.

Save the Children based its findings on interviews with more than 300 people in camps for displaced people and in neighborhoods whose residents have returned after being driven away by war. They said men in positions of authority — aid workers and soldiers, government employees and officials in the camps — were abusing girls.

"All of the respondents clearly stated that the scale of the problem affected over half of the girls in their locations," the report said. "The girls reportedly ranged in age from 8 to 18 years, with girls of 12 years and upward described as being regularly involved in 'selling sex,' commonly referred to as 'man business.' "

In a statement from Liberia, the United Nations said that eight cases of sexual abuse and exploitation involving its workers had been reported since the beginning of the year and that one staff member had been suspended, Reuters reported.

"It's unacceptable behavior," Jordan Ryan, the United Nations' humanitarian coordinator in Liberia, said in an interview with BBC radio from Monrovia, the Liberian capital.

Save the Children said Liberia and the United Nations should set up an office to investigate cases of the sexual exploitation and to work to ensure that the behavior stops, prosecuting the offenders, among other steps.

It also said United Nations workers accused of sexual exploitation should "go through judicial proceedings," and if found guilty, should not be sent elsewhere as peacekeepers.

Lock 'em up, throw away the key. The workers, that is.

It is an unacceptable behaviour, you're right. And the UN must act.

But the only thing that really surprises me is that the offenders aren't ordinarily prosecuted. Is that due to a legislative failure in Liberia, that aid workers and peacekeepers have some sort of immunity, or just a lack of will? Or is it something else?

It would seem that much of the blame for the situation lies with the Liberian government, for what seems to me to be their failure to investigate and prosecute the abusers.

It makes me wonder, how do you fix the problems, of the organization that's supose to be there fixing the problems????

It is an unacceptable behaviour, you're right. And the UN must act.
It would seem that much of the blame for the situation lies with the Liberian government, for what seems to me to be their failure to investigate and prosecute the abusers.


Yeah, but Liberia isn't going to cause trouble for the people giving them money and keeping the peace. The civil war was worse.

I heard a lot of the Peacekeeping forces are made up of Indians and Brazilians. It's almost like using Red Army troops from the 40s.

It makes me wonder, how do you fix the problems, of the organization that's supose to be there fixing the problems????

I'm sure you will find, while the UN is tarninshed by this as well, the problem is really a local one which permiates all of the society. School teacher, civil servants, army, police - in fact every relationship where a male is in a position ot abuse his power and there is no control mechanism to prevent it this is happening. It should also be noted that while it is easy to blame the men in this dirty business, exchanging sexual favours for cash/services/influence happens in every society, sometimes called prostitution, sometimes called marriage.

I heard a lot of the Peacekeeping forces are made up of Indians and Brazilians. It's almost like using Red Army troops from the 40s.

What is that supposed to mean

Yeah, but Liberia isn't going to cause trouble for the people giving them money and keeping the peace. The civil war was worse.
Well, they should cause trouble in alliance with and in cooperation with the UN and other countries then ;)

And at the very least they should hinder that their own government employees abuses these girls, that wouldn't stop money and aid coming into the country.

What is that supposed to mean
Xenophobic again, is my guess...

I'm sure you will find, while the UN is tarninshed by this as well, the problem is really a local one which permiates all of the society. School teacher, civil servants, army, police - in fact every relationship where a male is in a position ot abuse his power and there is no control mechanism to prevent it this is happening. It should also be noted that while it is easy to blame the men in this dirty business, exchanging sexual favours for cash/services/influence happens in every society, sometimes called prostitution, sometimes called marriage.


Ok, so on a larger scale how would you fix the problem? give all females a pistol? Then males can't abuse power?

What is that supposed to mean

Not disciplined well.

Ok, so on a larger scale how would you fix the problem? give all females a pistol? Then males can't abuse power?
Jobs and education, time and rules that how you fix this problem as well as almost every problem in Africa - that and shooting our dictators.

Well, they should cause trouble in alliance with and in cooperation with the UN and other countries then ;)

And at the very least they should hinder that their own government employees abuses these girls, that wouldn't stop money and aid coming into the country.

Yeah, I agree, but how do you change the culture to reach that goal? You would need a great local leader to step up, or an outside infulence, hopfully with better moral behavior than the UN.

For the troops the should be a 'No walking out' policy such as the irish army has in place for its troops.When you not on duty your confined to base.Liberia isnt really the sort of place to go for a beer and pick up girls for sex anyway.I think about 25% of people have HIV/AIDS.Think of the consequences of them bringing that home to their families.

Jobs and education, time and rules that how you fix this problem as well as almost every problem in Africa - that and shooting our dictators.


I agree, but you need to start with a morality that values rules, jobs, and education. The peacekeepers/educators should be setting that expectation not abusing the lack of civil law.

Just goes to show you, even the people who help are bastards.

We need to get some yuppie greenpeace jackasses in there - they're either gay or scared shitless of women, so they wouldn't be able to do anything bad. =)

Not disciplined well.
The Indian army has one of the finest fighting history in the world, they are disciplined (mostly).

For the troops the should be a 'No walking out' policy such as the irish army has in place for its troops.When you not on duty your confined to base.Liberia isnt really the sort of place to go for a beer and pick up girls for sex anyway.I think about 25% of people have HIV/AIDS.Think of the consequences of them bringing that home to their families.


There is a sort of cosmic justice after all. The AIDS death penalty seems severe enough and they really can't claim not guilty.

What Irish Army????????????????

I agree, but you need to start with a morality that values rules, jobs, and education. The peacekeepers/educators should be setting that expectation not abusing the lack of civil law.
Whose morality?

What Irish Army????????????????
The Irish Army has a small force in Liberia for peacekeeping.Also a unit of rangers is stationed there .

Yeah, I agree, but how do you change the culture to reach that goal? You would need a great local leader to step up, or an outside infulence, hopfully with better moral behavior than the UN.
What you need is a working government, on both a national and local level, and the change will come (if the people of Liberia seeks a change, that is). Maybe it's just a question of time...

any of these people ever heard of AIDS? (I hope they get it. Sick bastards)

well.just castrate them =]

UNMIL: (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmil/index.html)
Strength as of 31 March 2006
15,841 total uniformed personnel, including 14,614 troops and 199 military observers; 1,028 police supported by 545 international civilian personnel, 1,381 local staff and 255 United Nations Volunteers
Contributors of Military Personnel
Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Moldova, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Phillipines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sweden, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Zambia.
Contributors of Police Personnel
Argentina, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, China, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Phillipines, Poland, Russian Federation, Samoa, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United States, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
(No mention of India, by the way...)

The're opening the corner shops (only joking)

well.just castrate them =]
You could implement the death penalty if you'd like, the problem would still remain; the lack of investigation and prosecution.

well.just castrate them =]


Then you would have to castrate swathes of the male population, most military personell and that would effectively kill the UN's military capabilities as no nation would donate troops if they ran the risk of being de-nadgered

Then you would have to castrate swathes of the male population, most military personell and that would effectively kill the UN's military capabilities as no nation would donate troops if they ran the risk of being de-nadgered


how about the injection of hormones inibers =\

Whose morality?

Almost anyone's. Most major religions would work. Most industialized nation's cultural attitudes would work. The key though has to be an expectation the behavior is wrong and will be punished.

We are saying the same thing, except you seem to say just do the right thing and over time it will work out. But you don't put in the mechanism that would cause the change in a positive manner, over time. You sort of assume they will see things like we do and it'll all just work out.

how about the injection of hormones inibers =\

How would you pay for that in Africa where most people can't afford asprins and national governments can not afford to give decent palitive care let alone life saving care or this punitive medicine.

What you need is a working government, on both a national and local level, and the change will come (if the people of Liberia seeks a change, that is). Maybe it's just a question of time...


Right, but the people who should be helping the working government form a rule of law from the chaos of civil war, The UN, are just as bad as the locals. A local leader could rise up and straighten things out, it happens. That's not really the issue though. There should be no excuse for the 'helpers' to forget the rule of law which should apply to them just as if they were in their home country.

For the troops the should be a 'No walking out' policy such as the irish army has in place for its troops.When you not on duty your confined to base.Liberia isnt really the sort of place to go for a beer and pick up girls for sex anyway.I think about 25% of people have HIV/AIDS.Think of the consequences of them bringing that home to their families.
Didn't know there was that. Sounds like a good policy, after all they have a big-ass bar to drink in on base, why would they need to go out?
Thing is, this is not the first time this has happened. Nigh on every UN mission in the past twenty years has had some sort of thing like this, as far as I can remember. I think there was a similar report on the Ivory Coast mission about a year or two back.
Whenever you get a large group of men like this, there will always be people who will pay for sex, and of those there will always be some folk who look to the younger girls. They should be punished. Military justice allows for very harsh punishments for rape, doesn't it? (Can you be summarily executed for it?) This is rape, they're all far too young to consent. So shoot em or imprison em or whatever.

The Indian army has one of the finest fighting history in the world, they are disciplined (mostly).

I'd like to believe that, but common sense tells me that larger army = less discipline.

Almost anyone's. Most major religions would work. Most industialized nation's cultural attitudes would work. The key though has to be an expectation the behavior is wrong and will be punished.

We are saying the same thing, except you seem to say just do the right thing and over time it will work out. But you don't put in the mechanism that would cause the change in a positive manner, over time. You sort of assume they will see things like we do and it'll all just work out.

I doubt seriously that we share the same moral code, though eliments might be similar. Therefore, if we are to chose between ourselves and ignore the full spectrum of moral codes and ethical beleifs that pervade the earth, whose wins? Whose moral code do we impose of the Liberians?

Let me say this, stopping underage sex should not be the highest priority of the forces mandated to instill peace in Liberia. Yes, they should enforce a moral code amongst themselves that the armed forces agree to, but they should not be expected to nor are they capable of forcing such changes in the local populations.

Also some realism should be used at this point. 1) poor young girls with no markitable skills, living in displacement shelters away from their homes. often feeding families who know nothing except agriculture which they can't practice because they are displaced and the jungles are full of landmines 2) Lonely battle hardened* soldiers, away from home, peace keeping (tends to be boring I'm told) with no wives or girlfriends and usually ladden with nice clean US dollars and nothing to do when off duty. What do you think will happen?

*Tends to be African and Asian troops that have seen battle more recently than European or Americans (continents not USA)

I'd like to believe that, but common sense tells me that larger army = less discipline.

A) How do you figure that out?

B) Odd how there's no mention of Indian peacekeepers in those UN stats, huh?

I doubt seriously that we share the same moral code, though eliments might be similar. Therefore, if we are to chose between ourselves and ignore the full spectrum of moral codes and ethical beleifs that pervade the earth, whose wins? Whose moral code do we impose of the Liberians?

Let me say this, stopping underage sex should not be the highest priority of the forces mandated to instill peace in Liberia. Yes, they should enforce a moral code amongst themselves that the armed forces agree to, but they should not be expected to nor are they capable of forcing such changes in the local populations.

Also some realism should be used at this point. 1) poor young girls with no markitable skills, living in displacement shelters away from their homes. often feeding families who know nothing except agriculture which they can't practice because they are displaced and the jungles are full of landmines 2) Lonely battle hardened* soldiers, away from home, peace keeping (tends to be boring I'm told) with no wives or girlfriends and usually ladden with nice clean US dollars and nothing to do when off duty. What do you think will happen?

*Tends to be African and Asian troops that have seen battle more recently than European or Americans (continents not USA)
Yeah, but there are adult prostitutes too. It's one thing to be having sex with a sixteen-year-old prostitute (after all, many of these soldiers aren't much older than that themselves), but an eight-year-old? That's wrong, no matter how you slice it.

I doubt seriously that we share the same moral code, though eliments might be similar. Therefore, if we are to chose between ourselves and ignore the full spectrum of moral codes and ethical beleifs that pervade the earth, whose wins? Whose moral code do we impose of the Liberians?

Let me say this, stopping underage sex should not be the highest priority of the forces mandated to instill peace in Liberia. Yes, they should enforce a moral code amongst themselves that the armed forces agree to, but they should not be expected to nor are they capable of forcing such changes in the local populations.

Also some realism should be used at this point. 1) poor young girls with no markitable skills, living in displacement shelters away from their homes. often feeding families who know nothing except agriculture which they can't practice because they are displaced and the jungles are full of landmines 2) Lonely battle hardened* soldiers, away from home, peace keeping (tends to be boring I'm told) with no wives or girlfriends and usually ladden with nice clean US dollars and nothing to do when off duty. What do you think will happen?

*Tends to be African and Asian troops that have seen battle more recently than European or Americans (continents not USA)


That's funny, now you make excuses for the behavior. What happened to Jobs and education, over time? Isn't education just another way of imposing our moral values, or our culture?

A) How do you figure that out?

B) Odd how there's no mention of Indian peacekeepers in those UN stats, huh?

I'm just saying what I read.

And yes, larger armies tend to be less disciplined. It's just like classrooms; the less people you work with, the more each individual can get out of it. That's one of the reasons that special forces are relatively small and very efficient.

I'd like to believe that, but common sense tells me that larger army = less discipline.
The US army is large andrelatively well diciplined. in 1915 and 1940 when they had never really seen battle and didn't understand the nature of war and the need to follow most orders from their line officer they still did as they were told and marched in straight lines and had nice ironed trousers. The Roman Army was vast, as were the standing armies of the Napoleonic war by today's standards.

The truth is the size of an army doesn't directly affect its discipline, its officers and NCO's do and that goes as much for the rag tag reble armies of the heart of darkness as it does for the NATO Alliance. Necessity and boerdom also play a large part as does the availability of willing women (or girls), booze, and the money to drown the boredom.

That's funny, now you make excuses for the behavior. What happened to Jobs and education, over time? Isn't education just another way of imposing our moral values, or our culture?
No, listen to me. The behaviour is always going to happen where there are these two elements. by providing jobs etc the need for women to part their legs decrease, as does the instability of the country which will ultimately lead to the troops leaving.

The UN doesn't work. Plain and simple. I've spent four years studying how the UN works, and it's all pure utter bs politics.

I'm just saying what I read.

And yes, larger armies tend to be less disciplined. It's just like classrooms; the less people you work with, the more each individual can get out of it. That's one of the reasons that special forces are relatively small and very efficient.

Read? Read where exactly? How can there be Indians commiting those acts if, according to official UN statistics, they haven't even commited any Indian troops?

I mean what, are there rogue Indians perhaps, or mercenaries disguising themselves as Indians?

Your classroom analogie is also flawed, as armies have more than one teacher, the relative being officers and NCOs. Large armies can, and have, worked in history - Napoleonic armies, the Roman Legions, to name two examples.

The US army is large andrelatively well diciplined. in 1915 and 1940 when they had never really seen battle and didn't understand the nature of war and the need to follow most orders from their line officer they still did as they were told and marched in straight lines and had nice ironed trousers. The Roman Army was vast, as were the standing armies of the Napoleonic war by today's standards.

The truth is the size of an army doesn't directly affect its discipline, its officers and NCO's do and that goes as much for the rag tag reble armies of the heart of darkness as it does for the NATO Alliance. Necessity and boerdom also play a large part as does the availability of willing women (or girls), booze, and the money to drown the boredom.

The difference between the armies you mentioned and the armies of nations such as India and Brazil is the fact that your mentioned armies were very well funded. Indian and Brazilian armies, not so much.

How would you pay for that in Africa where most people can't afford asprins and national governments can not afford to give decent palitive care let alone life saving care or this punitive medicine.


they can afford guns,bullets and bombs..they should check their proprities.

Read? Read where exactly? How can there be Indians commiting those acts if, according to official UN statistics, they haven't even commited any Indian troops?

I mean what, are there rogue Indians perhaps, or mercenaries disguising themselves as Indians?

I haven't read any of those stats, only that Indian troops are some of the most numerous in UN forces.

Your classroom analogie is also flawed, as armies have more than one teacher, the relative being officers and NCOs. Large armies can, and have, worked in history - Napoleonic armies, the Roman Legions, to name two examples.

See previous post.

Yeah, but there are adult prostitutes too. It's one thing to be having sex with a sixteen-year-old prostitute (after all, many of these soldiers aren't much older than that themselves), but an eight-year-old? That's wrong, no matter how you slice it.

True, but consider this. In Japan there is no leagal age of consent. In Zimbabwe (I was there at the time) a powerful tribal leader suggested droping the age of consent to eleven to accomidate child marriages (not always to other children). Who decided that 18 or 16 or 23 (depending where you live or whom you have sex with) was the age at which you can start having sex. And in war ravaged countries like Liberia, where there is very little law enforcement is having an age ever going to change the fact that it is going to be ignored. I do think sex with a 8 year old is wrong and I think we should try and stop it, but I'm a reasonably well educated, christian (Kind of) white African and as sure as day follows night, I would be indignat if you tried to impose your moral code on me, so imagin how a largely illiterate population would feel, especially if it also kills their livelyhood.

What really bugs me is that there's absolutely no mention of what nationality the peacekeepers, teachers, and aid workers are. I'd like to know...

This the India that spends $20 billion odd on their army?

No, listen to me. The behaviour is always going to happen where there are these two elements. by providing jobs etc the need for women to part their legs decrease, as does the instability of the country which will ultimately lead to the troops leaving.

Yep, I agree.

But change has to happen over time. It will either be in a good direction of a bad direction. As you point out relative points of view might see good or bad differently. We both agree, and I believe most of the world does too, that education and jobs make the quality of life better, and sets a cultural attitude which would frown on 'using' people in exchange for money or things. Any place with these conditions would have these problems. We agree.

The difference is the 'helpers' should know better. There is no excuse for them they come from cultures which don't tolerate that behavior, they should not be allowed to go wild. They should, as helpers, set a good example, or we (Humanity) should send better helpers.

I haven't read any of those stats, only that Indian troops are some of the most numerous in UN forces.



See previous post.

Then you have no reason for posting your first comment:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10923580&postcount=6

I heard a lot of the Peacekeeping forces are made up of Indians and Brazilians. It's almost like using Red Army troops from the 40s.

If there are no Indians in the UN forces there, then your connotation that they are much like Red Army soldiers, many of whom used to rape and pillage, is entirely false. There were no Indians even present in this taskforce; thus your view is misleading and entirely false.

Right, but the people who should be helping the working government form a rule of law from the chaos of civil war, The UN, are just as bad as the locals. A local leader could rise up and straighten things out, it happens. That's not really the issue though. There should be no excuse for the 'helpers' to forget the rule of law which should apply to them just as if they were in their home country.
I doubt that the UN are just as bad as the locals, but I've got nothing to back up this belief so I'll leave it at that.

Many countries have penalized criminal acts perpetrated by their nationals on foreign soil, so I'd like to see each country that have sent personell to face their responsibility and prosecute those who abuse children - regardless of the status of the criminal system in the country where the crime takes place.

But to some extent I can understand the Liberian government, if they have to prioritize peace and survival before stopping abuse. However, at some point they will have to do something. I just hope that point is reached soon.

This the India that spends $20 billion odd on their army?

Apparently that isn't well-funded...

I haven't read any of those stats, only that Indian troops are some of the most numerous in UN forces.Ukraine is the top country in that category, to my knowledge.

The difference between the armies you mentioned and the armies of nations such as India and Brazil is the fact that your mentioned armies were very well funded. Indian and Brazilian armies, not so much.
I can't speak about the Brazillian Army, but judging from footage of their forces in Haiti I think you're wrong. The Indian army is very well funded, by Indian standards. True there is curruption in the upper ranks, but thats India rather than the army. There is no way in the world the second most populace country in the world would pay their army peanuts or allow they to be poorly trained. Consider this, 1) the army is the product of what was once the British Army of India, the British India Company's Army and the personal armies of the Rajs all with strong discipline built into their codes of conduct. 2) there is the Pakistani Army to the East and the Chinesse army to the west and it is within living memopy of China's invasion of Tibet, Japan's invasion of Burma, three indo-pakistani wars and now they are part of a Asian nuklear version of a mexican stand off with Pakistan and China. 3) if the army were undisciplined and poorly paid the country would become ungovernable and civil war could easily break out as it nearly did under the Marxists Radicals in the 1970s

I doubt that the UN are just as bad as the locals, but I've got nothing to back up this belief so I'll leave it at that.

Many countries have penalized criminal acts perpetrated by their nationals on foreign soil, so I'd like to see each country that have sent personell to face their responsibility and prosecute those who abuse children - regardless of the status of the criminal system in the country where the crime takes place.

But to some extent I can understand the Liberian government, if they have to prioritize peace and survival before stopping abuse. However, at some point they will have to do something. I just hope that point is reached soon.

Well said.

I just really hate 'peace keepers' who abuse the people they should be helping.

Rhoderick, as far as I know, the vast majority of (if not all) cultures consider eight to be far too young for sex (not necessarily marriage. Moreover, as far as I know, none of the countries on peacekeeping duties in Liberia allow sex with eight year olds. The age of consent in Liberia is 16. Therefore, even if we leave aside the question of whether it is immoral or not (I don't wanna get into moral relativism here), it is illegal.

I heard a lot of the Peacekeeping forces are made up of Indians and Brazilians. It's almost like using Red Army troops from the 40s.

Where the hell do you pull this shit from? What do you know about Brazilian or Indian military, except that their soldiers aren't white? What war crimes or crimes against humanity have they committed, huh?

Yea, that's what I thought. You don't know.

What really bugs me is that there's absolutely no mention of what nationality the peacekeepers, teachers, and aid workers are. I'd like to know...
Why? Does it make any difference?

Oh, and remember the list of nations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10923677&postcount=26) that have sent personell to Liberia.

Who Is Involved?

“Men come from different communities. They say that the camp has good, good girls and so they come here to look for them.”

A broad cross-section of men were identified as being involved in having sex with children. These were generally adult men between 30 to 60 years of age with some money or 'status‘. Some of these are men within the camps but many come from outside, visiting or working temporarily in, or in the vicinity of, the camps.

In all locations we were told of the following men involved:
• Sugar daddies or older men who support a girl with food, clothing and school fees, etc, in return for sex.
• Businessmen in the community, from the surrounding towns or villages, from the city or from other countries.
• Peacekeeping soldiers. In each location where there is or has been a UN peacekeeping contingent, they were identified as being involved in the sexual exploitation of young girls.
• Humanitarian workers. All focus groups and individual interviewees without exception mentioned NGO workers.
• Video club operators. These were identified as asking for sex in return for allowing admittance. In addition, video clubs admit children where x-rated pornographic movies are shown.
• ‘Big men’ in the camps, including members of the Camp Management Committee (CMC), block leaders and officials.
• Government workers/officials
• Police officers.
• Ex-combatants. They were specifically mentioned in two of the camps as men with money who sought girls for sex.
• Soldiers from the Liberian Army.
• Teachers in the camps and in the community who have sex with pupils in lieu of school fees.

Save the children report (http://www.savethechildren.org/publications/liberia-exploitation-v4.pdf), p. 11.

This the India that spends $20 billion odd on their army?

Yep. Which is hardly anything. The US spends 440 billion. Germany, with a much smaller military, spends 24.4 billion.

Where the hell do you pull this shit from? What do you know about Brazilian or Indian military, except that their soldiers aren't white? What war crimes or crimes against humanity have they committed, huh?

Yea, that's what I thought. You don't know.

They're probably socialist or something. Or possibly inferior to whites. Really, I'm getting a tad weary of K-P making stuff up, or linking to xenophobic faked articles, or just making wide, sweeping generalisations like this one.

Where the hell do you pull this shit from? What do you know about Brazilian or Indian military, except that their soldiers aren't white? What war crimes or crimes against humanity have they committed, huh?

Yea, that's what I thought. You don't know.Brazlians can be "white":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a9/Brazil_Haiti_2005.jpg/200px-Brazil_Haiti_2005.jpg

Where the hell do you pull this shit from? What do you know about Brazilian or Indian military, except that their soldiers aren't white? What war crimes or crimes against humanity have they committed, huh?

Yea, that's what I thought. You don't know.

I never said that they committed crimes. I never said that they didn't. I just said that I wasn't surprised that crimes were committed by a force that is made up of troops primarily from larger, less funded militaries.

And if you think this is a race thing, you're wrong. I love Indians. And I got nothing against the Brazilians.

Rhoderick, as far as I know, the vast majority of (if not all) cultures consider eight to be far too young for sex (not necessarily marriage. Moreover, as far as I know, none of the countries on peacekeeping duties in Liberia allow sex with eight year olds. The age of consent in Liberia is 16. Therefore, even if we leave aside the question of whether it is immoral or not (I don't wanna get into moral relativism here), it is illegal.

May I be blunt? Liberia does not have a working legal code or system, Liberia does not have electricity, clean water, its own police force - except in name. People have been killing each other in the thousands since Freed slaves were returned to Africa under Munroe and probably been doing it for ages before. The simple reality is this, The country has to be fixed, priority number one is reigning in the warlards, two is turning the power back on and getting the water to flow. Three is securing the borders to prevent Taylor's associates and those inclined to use Liberia as a staging ground for regional conflicts from setting up camp.

I'm sorry for the girls, but if, even for a heart beat, attention slips from the other things to this the whole house of cards could collapse around Africa's first female president's poor head. The Troops have been told by their officers, and the will be some action no doubt, but the spead of this particular trait will only be curtailed by Liberians themselves when they are economically and politically secure enough to tackle it.

Well said.

I just really hate 'peace keepers' who abuse the people they should be helping.
I agree. Fortunately, it's not too many of them that actually do abuse. Unfortunately, just a few will give the the majority a bad reputation.

I never said that they committed crimes. I never said that they didn't. I just said that I wasn't surprised that crimes were committed by a force that is made up of troops primarily from larger, less funded militaries.

And if you think this is a race thing, you're wrong. I love Indians. And I got nothing against the Brazilians.

No, you insinuated that crimes were commited by Indians and Brazilians, comparing them to the Red Army troops of the 1940's. Thus insinuating/suggesting that they must be raping and pillaging etc.

Apparently that isn't well-funded...

Definitely not. Bill Gates is worth more than the Indina military.

No, you insinuated that crimes were commited by Indians and Brazilians, comparing them to the Red Army troops of the 1940's. Thus insinuating/suggesting that they must be raping and pillaging etc.

I was insinuating that crimes were being committed by the UN peacekeepers, who are made up of troops from larger, less funded militaries such as India and Brazil.

Although the comparison is a bit harsh, I admit.

Ukraine is the top country in that category, to my knowledge.

And Ukraine probably should be run by UN Peacekeepers themselves.

Where'd you get that from, anyway? Top troop contributors are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Uruguay, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa. Which is depressing, because I sure as hell wouldn't want to be liberated by Nigeria.

Definitely not. Bill Gates is worth more than the Indina military.

Bill Gates is worth more than most of humanity put together* so just shove that statement up where the sun doesn't shine. You made a silly statement, infering something you couldn't prove and which most of those who have responded to you thought was at the very least stupid, if not outright racist. Lets be honest here for a second, yes poor countries have less control of their forces, but assuming that either India or Brazil are inherantly poor is questionable further, both are viable candidated for veto holding mebers of the security coucil along with Japan and Germany.

* in part because he is so rich and in part because we are all so poor

And Ukraine probably should be run by UN Peacekeepers themselves.

Where'd you get that from, anyway? Top troop contributors are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Uruguay, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa. Which is depressing, because I sure as hell wouldn't want to be liberated by Nigeria.It's what it was like a few years ago, I think. Ukraine was one of those semi-mercenary countries that used the UN to boost its national budget by selling out its soldiers.

And Ukraine probably should be run by UN Peacekeepers themselves.

Where'd you get that from, anyway? Top troop contributors are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Uruguay, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa. Which is depressing, because I sure as hell wouldn't want to be liberated by Nigeria.
Historically Nigeria has been the strongest defender of Democracy in Africa, even when it was a dictatorship. Without a doubt they have the largest army in Africa and one of the best trained and equiped. In training I think they are 8th or 9th after Botswana, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, South Africa, Egypt and Algeria and a couple others.

Bill Gates is worth more than most of humanity put together* so just shove that statement up where the sun doesn't shine. You made a silly statement, infering something you couldn't prove and which most of those who have responded to you thought was at the very least stupid, if not outright racist. Lets be honest here for a second, yes poor countries have less control of their forces, but assuming that either India or Brazil are inherantly poor is questionable further, both are viable candidated for veto holding mebers of the security coucil along with Japan and Germany.

* in part because he is so rich and in part because we are all so poor

I think it's wrong that Bill Gates has more money that the military of the second largest nation of Earth.

And India and Brazil have just as much right to a permanent seat as Germany and Japan, because of the size of their contribution.

Historically Nigeria has been the strongest defender of Democracy in Africa, even when it was a dictatorship. Without a doubt they have the largest army in Africa and one of the best trained and equiped. In training I think they are 8th or 9th after Botswana, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, South Africa, Egypt and Algeria and a couple others.

Well, I just picked a random African country out of those. Fine. I wouldn't want to be liberated by Ghana.

It's what it was like a few years ago, I think. Ukraine was one of those semi-mercenary countries that used the UN to boost its national budget by selling out its soldiers.

And it's the UN's own stupid fault for letting them. Personally, I think there should be a requirement to contributing troops. Like... picking good countries to draw them from. Pity the good countries don't want to contribute.

Well, I just picked a random African country out of those. Fine. I wouldn't want to be liberated by Ghana.
Ghana was the first African nation to free itself from foreign domination (if you discount the inept invasion of Ethipia by the Italians). THe Ghanaians trained and equiped revolutionary armies throughout African and have a long tradition of sending peace keepers through out the world.

And it's the UN's own stupid fault for letting them. Personally, I think there should be a requirement to contributing troops. Like... picking good countries to draw them from. Pity the good countries don't want to contribute.

Britain, France and China proposed that in the 1950's the US and USSR vetoed the plan.

Ghana was the first African nation to free itself from foreign domination (if you discount the inept invasion of Ethipia by the Italians). THe Ghanaians trained and equiped revolutionary armies throughout African and have a long tradition of sending peace keepers through out the world.

That doesn't make them any good.

Britain, France and China proposed that in the 1950's the US and USSR vetoed the plan.

What plan?

That doesn't make them any good.I find it interesting how you judge a country's military capabilities simply for its geographic location and the skin color of its people. Interestingly enough, both Ghana and Nigeria are in ECOWAS, which has established the to date most successful African military monitoring and peacekeeping group, ECOMOG, mainly through efforts of Nigeria.

Wasn't there a thread on this topic just yesterday?

Ah, yes. Thought so: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481543

That doesn't make them any good.


There are only three European colonies left in Africa today, Reunion, Spanish North Africa and the Canaries

I think that means they were successful at liberating other countries.

There are no wars being fought in Cypres at the moment that i think they were fairly sucessful on that count too.

What plan?
Look up the Proposal "Standing Army of The United Nations"

Wasn't there a thread on this topic just yesterday?

Ah, yes. Thought so: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481543
Hush, you. That didn't get past two pages, so this one must be better and more informative! Everyone understands that! :p

Wasn't there a thread on this topic just yesterday?

Ah, yes. Thought so: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481543

I think what has happened is that some one is insinuating that sub standard soldiers are the reason why this is happening and several people are trying to teach him/her something about reality

Let us be thankful Michael Jacksons Honorary UN peacekeeper status isn't doing anything for him.

This isn't the first time UN peacekeepers have been raping kids. Jordanian soldiers working as UN peacekeepers were molesting East Timorese kids. Not too long ago there was a similar scandal involving peacekeepers in the DRC If I remember correctly.

The UN is a mess. It pays for peacekeepers, but doesn't pay enough to encourage rich nations with disciplined troops to participate, so it draws some of the worst, least diciplined and reliable troops and puts them in charge of defenseless people. I don't know how to solve the problem, but perhaps severe penalties for peacekeepers found molesting kids would be a start.

Well, I just picked a random African country out of those. Fine. I wouldn't want to be liberated by Ghana.

And after this statement, you think you're still going to be taken seriously in this conversation about armies and societites of the Third World?

"I have no clue about African nations, but they're African, so they can't be good, so I wouldn't want to be liberated by them, because they're African."

Pathetic.

This isn't the first time UN peacekeepers have been raping kids. Jordanian soldiers working as UN peacekeepers were molesting East Timorese kids. Not too long ago there was a similar scandal involving peacekeepers in the DRC If I remember correctly.

The UN is a mess. It pays for peacekeepers, but doesn't pay enough to encourage rich nations with disciplined troops to participate, so it draws some of the worst, least diciplined and reliable troops and puts them in charge of defenseless people. I don't know how to solve the problem, but perhaps severe penalties for peacekeepers found molesting kids would be a start.


In the DRC they were also accused of eating people so I'd be very sckeptical about any alligations from that quarter

Hush, you. That didn't get past two pages, so this one must be better and more informative! Everyone understands that! :p
Oh, I understand that ;)

I just had a feeling of déjà-vus and couldn't put a finger on it for a minute or two. Please carry on! :D

*steps back to watch the mayhem unfold further*

In the DRC they were also accused of eating people so I'd be very sckeptical about any alligations from that quarter
I almost wouldn't put cannibalism past some UN peacekeepers. almost

I almost wouldn't put cannibalism past some UN peacekeepers. almost

Why do you say that?

Oh, I understand that ;)

I just had a feeling of déjà-vus and couldn't put a finger on it for a minute or two. Please carry on! :D

*steps back to watch the mayhem unfold further*
Aaah! It's a glitch in the Matrix! :eek:

*Loads guns and dodges flying bullets*

I almost wouldn't put cannibalism past some UN peacekeepers. almost
Nor the teachers, aid workers, police officers, government employees, soldiers from the Liberian Army, or businessmen either, eh?

Why do you say that?
Because I have a very low opinion of them. Not just because of the repeated instances of child molestation and rape, but also because there is a history of peacekeepers from different nations not working well together because of political or ethnic disagreements, and peacekeepers being used to settle old scores by some UN personell.

One example of the latter is when Bhutros Bhutros Ghali used peacekeepers to attack Muhammad Fara Aidid in Somalia partly because he had deposed Mohammad Said Barre, a man supported by Ghali.

And after this statement, you think you're still going to be taken seriously in this conversation about armies and societites of the Third World?

"I have no clue about African nations, but they're African, so they can't be good, so I wouldn't want to be liberated by them, because they're African."

Pathetic.

I wouldn't want to be liberated by anybody; all troops are potential criminals. But better, say, the US, UK, France or Germany, and than, say, Ethiopia, Nigeria, China, India or Russia.

But of course, they're African. Which means they're not white. Which means they're perfect.

Nor the teachers, aid workers, police officers, government employees, soldiers from the Liberian Army, or businessmen either, eh?
WTF?

This isn't the first time UN peacekeepers have been raping kids. Jordanian soldiers working as UN peacekeepers were molesting East Timorese kids. Not too long ago there was a similar scandal involving peacekeepers in the DRC If I remember correctly.

The UN is a mess. It pays for peacekeepers, but doesn't pay enough to encourage rich nations with disciplined troops to participate, so it draws some of the worst, least diciplined and reliable troops and puts them in charge of defenseless people. I don't know how to solve the problem, but perhaps severe penalties for peacekeepers found molesting kids would be a start.

I think Abu Graib demonstrates that rich countries don't nessecarily have disciplined troops. Most nations do contribute troops regardless of wealth, it is onlt really the US and (while it existed) the USSR that ever got scwirmy about it.

I find it interesting how you judge a country's military capabilities simply for its geographic location and the skin color of its people. Interestingly enough, both Ghana and Nigeria are in ECOWAS, which has established the to date most successful African military monitoring and peacekeeping group, ECOMOG, mainly through efforts of Nigeria.

So, you're backing them up as peacekeepers by saying that they're... peacekeepers?

So, you're backing them up as peacekeepers by saying that they're... peacekeepers?

I'd just bow out if I were you. You made an absolute shocker of a first comment and have just been digging your grave with special shovels of ignorance ever since.

Because I have a very low opinion of them. Not just because of the repeated instances of child molestation and rape, but also because there is a history of peacekeepers from different nations not working well together because of political or ethnic disagreements, and peacekeepers being used to settle old scores by some UN personell.

One example of the latter is when Bhutros Bhutros Ghali used peacekeepers to attack Muhammad Fara Aidid in Somalia partly because he had deposed Mohammad Said Barre, a man supported by Ghali.


Firstly, I presume you mean the Black down incident. Ghali didn't send in the US Mariens, the pentigon/White house did, without telling the Pakistani heavy armoured division that they were going in. It was the Pakistani's that saved the remnats of the American force because they were the nearest force capable of doing so.

There are only three European colonies left in Africa today, Reunion, Spanish North Africa and the Canaries

I think that means they were successful at liberating other countries.

There are no wars being fought in Cypres at the moment that i think they were fairly sucessful on that count too.

I don't think that African countries liberated other African countries, honey. It was probably more of the fact that imperialism went out of fashion.

I wouldn't want to be liberated by anybody; all troops are potential criminals. But better, say, the US, UK, France or Germany, and than, say, Ethiopia, Nigeria, China, India or Russia.

But of course, they're African. Which means they're not white. Which means they're perfect.
I'm white and African. Please don't make silly statements like this

I think Abu Graib demonstrates that rich countries don't nessecarily have disciplined troops. Most nations do contribute troops regardless of wealth, it is onlt really the US and (while it existed) the USSR that ever got scwirmy about it.

Abu Ghraib? Oh please. That was just the soldiers having a little fun. Deplorable, but as war crimes go, that's extremely mild.

I'm white and African. Please don't make silly statements like this

It was sarcasm.

Abu Ghraib? Oh please. That was just the soldiers having a little fun. Deplorable, but as war crimes go, that's extremely mild.

What a nasty little twat you are.

What a nasty little twat you are.

If you think Abu Ghraib was bad, you just haven't read much history.

I don't think that African countries liberated other African countries, honey. It was probably more of the fact that imperialism went out of fashion.

Firstly, I'm not your honey. Secondly Pax Americana in Iraq proves Imperialism never really goes out of fashion, simply different people do it from time to time. Lastly, Most African countries were "liberated" from colonial regems by gureilla warfare based in staging grounds in already "liberated" countries with training and arms paid for by the US/USSR or those "freed" countries.

I don't think that African countries liberated other African countries, honey. It was probably more of the fact that imperialism went out of fashion.

So you don't actually know about the war in Algeria? That costed more than million lives? About Mau-Mau of Kenia? About FNLA of Angola, their war that lasted for decades? Mozambique's war of Liberation?

"It was propably...." ? READ SOMETHING, KNOW SOMETHING before posting utter bullshit.

It was sarcasm.
it was racism

Firstly, I presume you mean the Black down incident. Ghali didn't send in the US Mariens, the pentigon/White house did, without telling the Pakistani heavy armoured division that they were going in. It was the Pakistani's that saved the remnats of the American force because they were the nearest force capable of doing so.
Ghali escalated tensions with Aidid by helping to isolate his clan politically and had a personal problem with him. Also there were Bangladeshi peacekeepers along with the Pakistanis. There were problems with getting them to work well together and to coordinate with US troops IIRC.

WTF?
Those are some of the main groups abusing children in Liberia...

Firstly, I'm not your honey. Secondly Pax Americana in Iraq proves Imperialism never really goes out of fashion, simply different people do it from time to time. Lastly, Most African countries were "liberated" from colonial regems by gureilla warfare based in staging grounds in already "liberated" countries with training and arms paid for by the US/USSR or those "freed" countries.

1) What America is doing in Iraq is not imperialism. Maybe imperialism by proxy; similar to what the USSR did after WWII, but now people care because we're not fighting TEH EVIL GERMANS! Honestly, we may never know why the US is in Iraq, but it's not imperialism.

2) Guerilla warfare funded by the US/USSR hardly counts as African nations liberating colonies.

If you think Abu Ghraib was bad, you just haven't read much history.

It's just as bad as those crimes now committed by UN peacekeepers. They, too, were just "having little fun". In that sense, US Army is no better than Brazilian and Indian army are.

Ghali escalated tensions with Aidid by helping to isolate his clan politically and had a personal problem with him. Also there were Bangladeshi peacekeepers along with the Pakistanis. There were problems with getting them to work well together and to coordinate with US troops IIRC.

The Pakistani/Bagladeshi inability to work together probably has something to do with the fact that Bagladesh used to be part of Pakistan. If they could have worked together it would have been part of their own attempts to reconcile. The big problem with Somalia was America's unwillingness to allow their soldiers to take orders from non Americans. Ghali's politiking has a role, don't get me wrong, but he is used as a scape goat for American failure too often

It's just as bad as those crimes now committed by UN peacekeepers. They, too, were just "having little fun". In that sense, US Army is no better than Brazilian and Indian army are.

But it's unusual and terrible behavior by our standards. It's just another day at the office for the UN "peacekeepers".

So you don't actually know about the war in Algeria? That costed more than million lives? About Mau-Mau of Kenia? About FNLA of Angola, their war that lasted for decades? Mozambique's war of Liberation?

"It was propably...." ? READ SOMETHING, KNOW SOMETHING before posting utter bullshit.

Well, Algeria liberated itself, Kenya liberated itself, Angola liberated itself and Mozambique liberated itself. Your point is moot.

It's just as bad as those crimes now committed by UN peacekeepers. They, too, were just "having little fun". In that sense, US Army is no better than Brazilian and Indian army are.

Oh yes, because making some guys form a naked pyramid is just as bad as rape, murder and looting.

Abu Ghraib? Oh please. That was just the soldiers having a little fun. Deplorable, but as war crimes go, that's extremely mild.
Rape, torture and killings... is not mild...

1) What America is doing in Iraq is not imperialism. Maybe imperialism by proxy; similar to what the USSR did after WWII, but now people care because we're not fighting TEH EVIL GERMANS! Honestly, we may never know why the US is in Iraq, but it's not imperialism.
How come? British Empire: One strong country controlling smaller, less developed ones by force. Motivated by their natural resources. That's exactly what's now happening in Iraq, by the Yankees.

2) Guerilla warfare funded by the US/USSR hardly counts as African nations liberating colonies.
What do you know about any of the wars fought in Africa against European colonial powers? My guess is NOTHING AT ALL, please prove me wrong if you're able to.
Until you actually know what you're talking about, I suggest you stop posting. Your time would be better used in library, finding some real information about African history, than in here making yourself look ridiculous.

it was racism

No, it was sarcasm. The fact that in today's PC world, only whites are fallible.

Oh yes, because making some guys form a naked pyramid is just as bad as rape, murder and looting.
Where exactly have Brasilian or Indian UN peacekeepers raped, murdered and looted?

1) What America is doing in Iraq is not imperialism. Maybe imperialism by proxy; similar to what the USSR did after WWII, but now people care because we're not fighting TEH EVIL GERMANS! Honestly, we may never know why the US is in Iraq, but it's not imperialism.

2) Guerilla warfare funded by the US/USSR hardly counts as African nations liberating colonies.
or those "free countries".

e.g. the Frontline states vs. RSA; Moszambique, Zambia, Tanzania, Malawi vs. Rhodesian whites; Malians and Chadians fighting to oust regimes in each other's countries.

Well, Algeria liberated itself, Kenya liberated itself, Angola liberated itself and Mozambique liberated itself. Your point is moot.
Just as Afganistan liberated itself

Well, Algeria liberated itself, Kenya liberated itself, Angola liberated itself and Mozambique liberated itself. Your point is moot.

What you said was that "It was propably more because imperialism went out of fashion." Which I find very, very stupid thing to say.

If you think Abu Ghraib was bad, you just haven't read much history.


I really think you need to grow up.

We're not playing 'atrocity-scale' here. Your belief that sexual torture, physical abuse and murder are not 'bad' because they are not as 'bad' as genocide is as clueless as it is offensive.

How come? British Empire: One strong country controlling smaller, less developed ones by force. Motivated by their natural resources. That's exactly what's now happening in Iraq, by the Yankees.

Yeah, the difference is the fact that Iraq has it's own goverment now.

What do you know about any of the wars fought in Africa against European colonial powers? My guess is NOTHING AT ALL, please prove me wrong if you're able to.
Until you actually know what you're talking about, I suggest you stop posting. Your time would be better used in library, finding some real information about African history, than in here making yourself look ridiculous.

I know enough to tell you that isn't wasn't some sort of great continental campaign of liberation. The Africans didn't all band together to free each other from the shackles of white imperialists. It was guerilla warfare; the colonial powers were forced out because they couldn't win.

I really think you need to grow up.

We're not not playing 'atrocity-scale' here. Your belief that sexual torture, phyiscal abuse and murder are not 'bad' because they are not as 'bad' as genocide is as clueless as it is offensive.

Don't forget, he compares everything to that done by Soviet troops invading Germany and her sattelites during WWII.

Rape, torture and killings... is not mild...

Right. I'm sure that's what happened in Abu Ghraib.

And naked human pyramids is not torture. If you think it is, then I'm more than willing to show you what real torture is.

Oh yes, because making some guys form a naked pyramid is just as bad as rape, murder and looting.
Making some guys form a naked pyramid and raping and killing and torturing is just as bad as rape, murder and looting.

And yes, which cases involving the Brazilian and Indian peacekeepers are you referring to?

I really think you need to grow up.

We're not playing 'atrocity-scale' here. Your belief that sexual torture, physical abuse and murder are not 'bad' because they are not as 'bad' as genocide is as clueless as it is offensive.

You grow up. There was nothing of the sort at Abu Ghraib. There were naked people on leashes and guys standing on batteries.

Making some guys form a naked pyramid and raping and killing and torturing is just as bad as rape, murder and looting.

And yes, which cases involving the Brazilian and Indian peacekeepers are you referring to?

There were no rapes, murders or tortures at Abu Ghraib.

Making some guys form a naked pyramid and raping and killing and torturing is just as bad as rape, murder and looting.

And yes, which cases involving the Brazilian and Indian peacekeepers are you referring to?

I would also like to know this, as K-P keeps dodging the question.

I would also like to know this, as K-P keeps dodging the question.

They were just used generally to refer to larger usage by the UN of second and third-world troops.

Of course, you'll twist my comments to suit yourself. As usual.

You grow up. There was nothing of the sort at Abu Ghraib. There were naked people on leashes and guys standing on batteries.

Look, I'm a white Zimbabwean, that really makes me a Rhodesian - why my father gave me the name. I can honestly say that we did some nasty things, no where near as nasty as the South Africans or Idi Amin, but that doesn't change the fact that they were wrong.

Abu Graib may not have been as bad Saddam's death houses once the US took over, but it doesn't change the fact that it was morally inexcusable.

Look, I'm a white Zimbabwean, that really makes me a Rhodesian - why my father gave me the name. I can honestly say that we did some nasty things, no where near as nasty as the South Africans or Idi Amin, but that doesn't change the fact that they were wrong.

Abu Graib may not have been as bad Saddam's death houses once the US took over, but it doesn't change the fact that it was morally inexcusable.

I never said it was. But there is a massive difference between some naked stunts, and rape and murder. You're classifying them as basically the same thing. By your logic, we should give all civilian crimes the same penalties. You'll get the same sentence for murder, rape, theft, arson and j-walking.

It is an unacceptable behaviour, you're right. And the UN must act.

The UN is the one causing the problem.

They were just used generally to refer to larger usage by the UN of second and third-world troops.

Of course, you'll twist my comments to suit yourself. As usual.

Twist your words? They're your own damned words. You intimated that Brazilian and Indian troops were used as Peacekeepers, and that their actions were the same as those of the Red Army in the 1940's.

The UN is the one causing the problem.

The troops are. The UN is just an organisation. An apparently horribly inept one, but the countries deploying the peacekeepers should also shoulder some of the blame here.

They were just used generally to refer to larger usage by the UN of second and third-world troops.

Of course, you'll twist my comments to suit yourself. As usual.


There is no such thing as Second world countries any more, they used to be the Warsaw pact nations. I don't know why we still use the term third world, it doesn't say anything useful and is a bit insulting. e.g. when I move to Britain from Zimabawe, I can honestly say I was not impressed by the infustructure. there isn't anything so spectacular about the "first world".

Plus forces of the UK, France, Canada and Australia tend to give the hard centre of most UN forces anyway.

Where exactly have Brasilian or Indian UN peacekeepers raped, murdered and looted?

Yea, tell us that.

I never said it was. But there is a massive difference between some naked stunts, and rape and murder. You're classifying them as basically the same thing. By your logic, we should give all civilian crimes the same penalties. You'll get the same sentence for murder, rape, theft, arson and j-walking.
Where did I say that? All I said was the US should acknowledge its crimes or it will loose any moral high ground it has left, and those UN haters in the US who use this as an excuse to advocate disbanding the UN should look more closely at their own nation's activities before casting stones

There is no such thing as Second world countries any more, they used to be the Warsaw pact nations. I don't know why we still use the term third world, it doesn't say anything useful and is a bit insulting. e.g. when I move to Britain from Zimabawe, I can honestly say I was not impressed by the infustructure. there isn't anything so spectacular about the "first world".

I know there's not second world, but I like to use the term for nations like China and India, which aren't in the shitter, but still a little messed up.

There were no rapes, murders or tortures at Abu Ghraib.
Of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Graner) course (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Frederick) not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England)...

I guess the US government is wrong about that as well, since they have said the opposite...

And I think that
* Urinating on detainees
* Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
* Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
* Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
* Sodomization of detainees with a baton
* Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
* Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.
* Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.
is torture...

The troops are. The UN is just an organisation. An apparently horribly inept one, but the countries deploying the peacekeepers should also shoulder some of the blame here.

I think it is more likely that Liberia's state of being is at fault rather than simply puting the blame on the troops.

Where did I say that? All I said was the US should acknowledge its crimes or it will loose any moral high ground it has left, and those UN haters in the US who use this as an excuse to advocate disbanding the UN should look more closely at their own nation's activities before casting stones

I agree about the US. But we shouldn't downplay the crimes of UN troops just because US troops commit crimes too.

I know there's not second world, but I like to use the term for nations like China and India, which aren't in the shitter, but still a little messed up.


Who isn't messed up? from where do you stand that all the rest are crap?

I think it is more likely that Liberia's state of being is at fault rather than simply puting the blame on the troops.

The troops must shoulder much of the blame for doing these acts. The country may be in trouble, but it gives them no right to do this stuff. That Liberia is in turmoil does not suddenly absolve them of guilt.

Of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Graner) course (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Frederick) not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England)...

I guess the US government is wrong about that as well, since they have said the opposite...

And I think that
* Urinating on detainees
* Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
* Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
* Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
* Sodomization of detainees with a baton
* Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
* Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.
* Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.
is torture...

Hehehehehe...

Ok, maybe "low" torture. But it's not what I'd generally define as torture.

Who isn't messed up? from where do you stand that all the rest are crap?

Everyone's a little messed up. The West is probably the least so. Nations like China and India, a bit. Nations like Somalia are just fucked.

Hehehehehe...

Ok, maybe "low" torture. But it's not what I'd generally define as torture.

Well what the hell do you class as torture then, that this stuff is "Low"?

The troops must shoulder much of the blame for doing these acts. The country may be in trouble, but it gives them no right to do this stuff. That Liberia is in turmoil does not suddenly absolve them of guilt.

Well duh.

Hehehehehe...

Ok, maybe "low" torture. But it's not what I'd generally define as torture.

Is there something funny in that?

The UN is the one causing the problem.
The troops are. The UN is just an organisation. An apparently horribly inept one, but the countries deploying the peacekeepers should also shoulder some of the blame here.
I'd like to correct that to "Some troops are". And the problem here is not the UN, but the failure of the Liberian government - combined with the failure of the international community - to take fruitful steps to prevent abuse from happening.

Well what the hell do you class as torture then, that this stuff is "Low"?

Well...

- Hammering nails under finger and toe nails
- Cutting a person a lot and then pouring salt on them
- Forcing them to drink oil, then shooting them until they catch fire
- Meat hooks through the lungs, then hang them up until they die
- The classic "Blood Eagle"

Hehehehehe...

Ok, maybe "low" torture. But it's not what I'd generally define as torture.
OK, so to put words in your mouth, you don't consider rape a crime.

Torture is torture, there is no "high" or "low".

Well duh.

Was that really neccessary? I was responding to someone else who apparently thought otherwise.


Anyway, why won't you answer the Brazilian/Indian question? You keep avoiding it.

Should be investigated thoroughly, offenders should be prosecuted :sniper: and put to jail for a good extent of time.
If the UN and associates aren't better than the civil war parties, what are they good for anyway?

Is there something funny in that?

Makes me thinks of naked human pyramids. Hehehehe.

I agree about the US. But we shouldn't downplay the crimes of UN troops just because US troops commit crimes too.

We hear blood curdling calls for reform and arrests when the UN does bad, but when the states does there are no generals or ministers of war put on trial, the system isn't challenged, reforms are never called for. When the US troops got caught they were just bored troops getting out of hand, when UN troops get accuesed (without hard proof) the UN must be scrapped or radically reformed.

Well...

- Hammering nails under finger and toe nails
- Cutting a person a lot and then pouring salt on them
- Forcing them to drink oil, then shooting them until they catch fire
- Meat hooks through the lungs, then hang them up until they die
- The classic "Blood Eagle"

There's no difference between the two. Some are worse than others, but they're all still torture, creating physical and metal pain and anguish. To call them 'High' and 'Low' is rather pointless really.

OK, so to put words in your mouth, you don't consider rape a crime.

Torture is torture, there is no "high" or "low".

Oh course I consider rape a crime. That's not rape. That sodomy. Slightly different.

Makes me thinks of naked human pyramids. Hehehehe.

Yeah, funny. Almost as funny as thinking the white race might die out in a few hundred years, and that Germany lost WWII.


Hehehehehe....

Anyway, why won't you answer the Brazilian/Indian question? You keep avoiding it.

Like I said the last 1800 times, I used Brazilians and Indians to refer generally to the second-rate troops used by the UN. I'm not avoiding the question, you're avoiding my answer.

We hear blood curdling calls for reform and arrests when the UN does bad, but when the states does there are no generals or ministers of war put on trial, the system isn't challenged, reforms are never called for. When the US troops got caught they were just bored troops getting out of hand, when UN troops get accuesed (without hard proof) the UN must be scrapped or radically reformed.

The UN does have to be scrapped or hugely reformed, though. It helps people, but it doesn't address issues such as civil war and genocide well.

Yeah, funny. Almost as funny as thinking the white race might die out in a few hundred years, and that Germany lost WWII.


Hehehehehe....

Yes, 2 million raped women is hilarious. Everyone loves a comedian. I'm going to hold you to this.

Like I said the last 1800 times, I used Brazilians and Indians to refer generally to the second-rate troops used by the UN. I'm not avoiding the question, you're avoiding my answer.

Who are you to call other nations troops secand rate. Personally i'd rather have half a dozen Angolan veterans watching my back than the entire 101st... less likely to get a bullet in the back of my head

Oh course I consider rape a crime. That's not rape. That sodomy. Slightly different.

So you say it's less painful and horrible to assrape, =sodomize, with a baton, than it is to do it with penis to vagina? I don't understand you, man. I really don't.

Who are you to call other nations troops secand rate. Personally i'd rather have half a dozen Angolan veterans watching my back than the entire 101st... less likely to get a bullet in the back of my head

And I'd rather have the Australian army. Each to his own.

Oh course I consider rape a crime. That's not rape. That sodomy. Slightly different.
...

No.

It's sodomy and it is rape. You may call it "anal rape" if you wish, it doesn't make any difference. It is a crime, and used in that setting it constitutes torture.

Yes, 2 million raped women is hilarious. Everyone loves a comedian. I'm going to hold you to this.

Nah, they were naziwoman. They got what they deserved.

So you say it's less painful and horrible to assrape, =sodomize, with a baton, than it is to do it with penis to vagina? I don't understand you, man. I really don't.

I just don't see a baton in the ass of a criminal as bad as the rape of a innocent girl.

Nah, they were naziwoman. They got what they deserved.

Including the 8 year olds?

Like I said the last 1800 times, I used Brazilians and Indians to refer generally to the second-rate troops used by the UN. I'm not avoiding the question, you're avoiding my answer.

You said they looted, raped, murdered and pillaged. Which is what we were questioning you for.

The UN does have to be scrapped or hugely reformed, though. It helps people, but it doesn't address issues such as civil war and genocide well.

i have fallen out of love with the UN, I have to admit. It probably has to be reformed, but as sure as shit stinks its better than a unipolar world run by semi-literate missing links taking orders from corporate sponsers

...

No.

It's sodomy and it is rape. You may call it "anal rape" if you wish, it doesn't make any difference. It is a crime, and used in that setting it constitutes torture.

Each to his own. I just don't think it's that bad.

Yes, 2 million raped women is hilarious. Everyone loves a comedian. I'm going to hold you to this.

Please. Coming from someone that finds torture funny, I take no qualms in mocking you or your views.

Including the 8 year olds?

Of course. Raping is only "low torture" and "soldiers having little fun" after such a long war is only understandable. Though I haven't heard about Russians or Allies raping 8-years-old German girls. But anyways.

Please. Coming from someone that finds torture funny, I take no qualms in mocking you or your views.

Excellent. Although I wouldn't repeat that to Neu Leonstein.

I just don't see a baton in the ass of someone who haven't been convicted of a crime as bad as the rape of a girl.
That is truly your problem.

Oh, by the way, i fixed it for you...

Of course. Raping is only "low torture" and "soldiers having little fun" after such a long war is only understandable. Though I haven't heard about Russians or Allies raping 8-years-old German girls. But anyways.

I mean, they didn't pour salt over their bodies, or give them the infamous 'Blood Eagle', did they? So it's perfectly fine. After all, it's just "Low" torture...

Excellent. Although I wouldn't repeat that to Neu Leonstein.

Quite. Except that I respect Neu Leonstein and would tell him that I was of course mocking you, and that I don't find WWII in the least bit funny. I just find mocking your views amusing.

Of course. Raping is only "low torture" and "soldiers having little fun" after such a long war is only understandable. Though I haven't heard about Russians or Allies raping 8-years-old German girls. But anyways.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,707835,00.html

And seeing rape as no big deal tells me that you're sociopathic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,707835,00.html

And seeing rape as no big deal tells me that you're sociopathic.

You made me actually Laugh Out Loud! :D :D :D :D :D Thanks man! What else can I say! After all your statements about low torture and laughing for human pyramides... Just hilarious! :D

Quite. Except that I respect Neu Leonstein and would tell him that I was of course mocking you, and that I don't find WWII in the least bit funny. I just find mocking your views amusing.

Oh yes you do. You find the greatest mass rape in history hilarious. And I will hold you to that. Again and again. And again and again and again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,707835,00.html

And seeing rape as no big deal tells me that you're sociopathic.

I find it amusing when you can't tell when you're being mocked. Your own views/comments are merely being used against you. I believe you found what happened at Abu Ghraib amusing, I believe?

Hypocritical, no?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,707835,00.html

And seeing rape as no big deal tells me that you're sociopathic.
:D Oh, sweet delicious irony :fluffle:

I mean, they didn't pour salt over their bodies, or give them the infamous 'Blood Eagle', did they? So it's perfectly fine. After all, it's just "Low" torture...

Rape is the worst crime in the world. It deserves absolute torture and agonising death.

Oh yes you do. You find the greatest mass rape in history hilarious. And I will hold you to that. Again and again. And again and again and again.

Good man. And I'll continue to ignore your xenophobic, extremist views and, if I must, show them to be what they are; idiotic and foolish.

We hear blood curdling calls for reform and arrests when the UN does bad, but when the states does there are no generals or ministers of war put on trial, the system isn't challenged, reforms are never called for. When the US troops got caught they were just bored troops getting out of hand, when UN troops get accuesed (without hard proof) the UN must be scrapped or radically reformed.


The system was challenged, reforms were made. I just don't know if the reforms were no more (mild) torture, or no more pictures allowed. ;)

Oh yes you do. You find the greatest mass rape in history hilarious. And I will hold you to that. Again and again. And again and again and again.

Are you really serious? Don't you remember at all what you've been talking for the last few hours?

I find it amusing when you can't tell when you're being mocked. Your own views/comments are merely being used against you. I believe you found what happened at Abu Ghraib amusing, I believe?

Hypocritical, no?

I find naked people amusing. I find nothing amusing about mass rape.

Rape is the worst crime in the world. It deserves absolute torture and agonising death.

You called it a "Low" torture yourself. How...amusing.

You called it a "Low" torture yourself. How...amusing.

That wasn't rape. Not by my standards. And I'm not standing down from that view.

Good man. And I'll continue to ignore your xenophobic, extremist views and, if I must, show them to be what they are; idiotic and foolish.

And again and again and again...

... Rapist.

Though I haven't heard about Russians or Allies raping 8-years-old German girls. But anyways.
I'm sure if you went looking, you'd find a plethora of examples

And again and again and again...

... Rapist.

Just when I didn't think you could get any funnier or ridiculous!

Just when I didn't think you could get any funnier or ridiculous!

Hush, rapist. Don't justify your crimes. But you will suffer for them.

Rape is the worst crime in the world. It deserves absolute torture and agonising death.

But what happened in Abu Ghraib made you laugh? Raping from behind is more painfull than the "normal" rape, I've heard. But they were Iraqi's, so that counts as "low torture" and "soldiers having little fun".

When it comes to GERMANS, WHITE PEOPLE, it's suddenly horrible, discusting, awful, blaablaablaa!
You're really incredible in you inability to understand how illogical and utterly stupid your statements sound like.

Hush, rapist. Don't justify your crimes. But you will suffer for them.

I really haven't had this much amusement since...well, since UNA and 'China bombed Pearl Harbor.' Please, continue. What else have I done?

But what happened in Abu Ghraib made you laugh? Raping from behind is more painfull than the "normal" rape, I've heard. But they were Iraqi's, so that counts as "low torture" and "soldiers having little fun".

When it comes to GERMANS, WHITE PEOPLE, it's suddenly horrible, discusting, awful, blaablaablaa!
You're really incredible in you inability to understand how illogical and utterly stupid your statements sound like.

You heard me the first time. It's sodomy, not rape, and they most likely deserved it. Either way, the perpertrators were punished.

(Everything said by K-P)

Are you seeing any one for that right wing attitude? therapists, yoga classes, anger management sessions?

Oh yes you do. You find the greatest mass rape in history hilarious. And I will hold you to that. Again and again. And again and again and again.

I also just realised I never mentioned mass raping. You were the one who bought it up! Even more amusing, it would seem!

I really haven't had this much amusement since...well, since UNA and 'China bombed Pearl Harbor.' Please, continue. What else have I done?

Well, you're one of them now... so ya. You're a mass rapist.

You heard me the first time. It's sodomy, not rape, and they most likely deserved it. Either way, the perpertrators were punished.

Deserved it! Oh, dear god...my ribs are hurting. Please, continue, why did they apparently deserve it?

Are you seeing any one for that right wing attitude? therapists, yoga classes, anger management sessions?

I used to see a psychologist. But she convinced my family that I was entirely normal. Wrong.

Not disciplined well.
it meanas the un are stupid:headbang:

Deserved it! Oh, dear god...my ribs are hurting. Please, continue, why did they apparently deserve it?
Yes why?

I used to see a psychologist. But she convinced my family that I was entirely normal. Wrong.

ha

Fine, I give up. US troops are monsters, the UN is infallible, the mass rape of WWII is ok because the Germans deserved it. Right, got it. You win.

You heard me the first time. It's sodomy, not rape, and they most likely deserved it. Either way, the perpertrators were punished.

Oh come on people, this guy is joking! :D No one can be this stupid. He's just playing with us, laughing to our inability to understand his rather twisted sense of humour.

K-P has been sarcastic for the whole time. There's no other explanation for this.

Fine, I give up. US troops are monsters, the UN is infallible, the mass rape of WWII is ok because the Germans deserved it. Right, got it. You win.

No one said the German's deserved it

You heard me the first time. It's sodomy, not rape, and they most likely deserved it. Either way, the perpertrators were punished.
So the prisoners were consenting to this..sodomy? You sure it wasn't an anal rape, perchance?

Fine, I give up. US troops are monsters, the UN is infallible, the mass rape of WWII is ok because the Germans deserved it. Right, got it. You win.

You see, the odd thing is that we never bought up the mass rape of Germans in WWII. You did.

No one said the German's deserved it

Don't backtrack. It was entirely deserved.

Nah, they were naziwoman. They got what they deserved.

Oh come on people, this guy is joking! :D No one can be this stupid. He's just playing with us, laughing to our inability to understand his rather twisted sense of humour.

K-P has been sarcastic for the whole time. There's no other explanation for this.


I know I've had quite a laugh. Mass Rapist indeed...

Fine, I give up. US troops are monsters, the UN is infallible, the mass rape of WWII is ok because the Germans deserved it. Right, got it. You win.

You do realize I tried to make you understand how you usually sound like when I talked about "naziwomen"? No one in this thread has never said they deserved it. No one has ever justified rape. Or sodomy, which is just as bad.

Except you.

Don't backtrack. It was entirely deserved.

Ah, I see. So one obviously sarcastic remark to your comments later, and you can go into full victim mode. Good show!

Don't backtrack. It was entirely deserved.
Go say that to a German

You do realize I tried to make you understand how you usually sound like when I talked about "naziwomen"? No one in this thread has never said they deserved it. No one has ever justified rape. Or sodomy, which is just as bad.

Except you.

Yes. I'm the root of all evil. I cause all the crime in the world. It's my fault that women are raped, people are lynched, and children starve to death.

You heard me the first time. It's sodomy, not rape, and they most likely deserved it. Either way, the perpertrators were punished.
The hits just keep on coming...

You should look up the word "Sodomy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Sodomy)" and the word "Rape (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rape)" and learn the difference, you really should...

Don't backtrack. It was entirely deserved.

I think you have misconstrued sarcasm for statements of belief.

The rape of German women by the Soviets was partly a response to the genocidal war forght against them, but that doesn't, ultimately justify it. No one honestly said it was excusable. Simply that you can not honestly think that forcing a nightstick up someone's arse isn't also rape.

Go say that to a German

I am German.

I am German.

No, you're Australian, I believe you've said many times.

I think you have misconstrued sarcasm for statements of belief.

The rape of German women by the Soviets was partly a response to the genocidal war forght against them, but that doesn't, ultimately justify it. No one honestly said it was excusable. Simply that you can not honestly think that forcing a nightstick up someone's arse isn't also rape.

They deserved it just like you guys said, and it's my fault it happened.

I know I've had quite a laugh. Mass Rapist indeed...
I'd advise against putting that on your resumé... :p

No, you're Australian, I believe you've said many times.
it is not unheard of to be both German and Australian...

Yes. I'm the root of all evil. I cause all the crime in the world. It's my fault that women are raped, people are lynched, and children starve to death.

You, sir, are the master at blowing things out of proportion. Never in the field of general debating conflict have I see anyone else with your abilities to take a remark and take it to such obviously unreal extremes.


Bravo!

No, you're Australian, I believe you've said many times.

Whatever. Nationality doesn't matter.

I am German.
Yah little location thingy says that you live in Australia?

If Kievan-Prussia is being serious with all this, which I still refuse to believe, he has been saying for dozens of posts how sodomising is not that bad, Abu Ghraib wasn't that bad, how baton in the ass is not that bad, how human pyramides are funny, and is now crying because my one and only piece sarcasm about this, in which I mentioned Germany because I know it's so dear for him.

(That whole thing started when someone said it was fun that Germans lost the war, and he disagreed because women got raped, another example of his sense oh humour.)

And he's now saying Skinny is a massraper.

=he's a comedian. Making fun of us who try to speak seriously.

Whatever. Nationality doesn't matter.

Okay. I'm Chinese now, okay? I'm white, middle class and was born in the UK, lived all my life there. But now I'm Chinese? After all, nationality doesn't matter...


*Bows*

They deserved it just like you guys said, and it's my fault it happened.

I never said anything of the sort and, you can check each message I sent to confirm this. The one message that does refer to raping German women that isn't from you does so sarcastically. Now please stop this sillynes and lets talk nicely.

Yes. I'm the root of all evil. I cause all the crime in the world. It's my fault that women are raped, people are lynched, and children starve to death.

You DID say that prisoners of Abu Ghraib "propably deserved what they got".

That's what I was talking about.

I never said anything of the sort and, you can check each message I sent to confirm this. The one message that does refer to raping German women that isn't from you does so sarcastically. Now please stop this sillynes and lets talk nicely.
...and you may also go back on topic, if you've got more to say regarding the OP ;)

Now please stop this sillynes and lets talk nicely.

Why? How am I supposed to live when everything in the world is my fault?

You DID say that prisoners of Abu Ghraib "propably deserved what they got".

That's what I was talking about.

Oh, I missed that.

K-P, how can you rationalise that? disgraceful sentiment!!

...and you may also go back on topic, if you've got more to say regarding the OP ;)

I'll try and get us back on track, mate


Unfortunately we don't know which troops did this
They weren't Indian, however
The troops should be punished as badly as possible
Liberia needs to be fixed badly
The UN needs to institute some more control over the troops it uses

...and you may also go back on topic, if you've got more to say regarding the OP ;)

Okay, okay.

If we want the prevent this happening in other parts of the world, in part, armies will need more training on how to behave while peace keeping.

I'll try and get us back on track, mate


Unfortunately we don't know which troops did this
They weren't Indian, however
The troops should be punished as badly as possible
Liberia needs to be fixed badly
The UN needs to institute some more control over the troops it uses

In a nut shell, so to speak

In a nut shell, so to speak

Unfortunately how to implement that control is the difficult part. Something has to be done, but at the moment I'm all out of ideas...

Why? How am I supposed to live when everything in the world is my fault?Quietly. Being a self-loathing attention whore will do nothing to improve anyone's image of you. ;)

Quietly. Being a self-loathing attention whore will do nothing to improve anyone's image of you. ;)

He started a thread on it just below this one, fyi.

...and you may also go back on topic, if you've got more to say regarding the OP ;)
I'm just glad that when I posted a thread on this yesterday that everybody had taken their respective meds and it did'nt get past two pages and this
messed up.. Very funny but messed up...

K-P has another thread going, asking for instructions on suicide!!:confused:

I'm sure you will find, while the UN is tarninshed by this as well, the problem is really a local one which permiates all of the society. School teacher, civil servants, army, police - in fact every relationship where a male is in a position ot abuse his power and there is no control mechanism to prevent it this is happening. It should also be noted that while it is easy to blame the men in this dirty business, exchanging sexual favours for cash/services/influence happens in every society, sometimes called prostitution, sometimes called marriage.

rhoderick is right. and even tho i don't condone such behavior, i have to wonder why whenever sex is involved in someone doing something they shouldn't, its automatically assumed that the female is the victim. i know plenty of teenage girls in this country alone that would take advantage of such a scenario to get what they want. its the abuse of power that is the problem, not the sex.

rhoderick is right. and even tho i don't condone such behavior, i have to wonder why whenever sex is involved in someone doing something they shouldn't, its automatically assumed that the female is the victim. i know plenty of teenage girls in this country alone that would take advantage of such a scenario to get what they want. its the abuse of power that is the problem, not the sex.

Thanks

its the abuse of power that is the problem, not the sex.
Pretty much, any soldier that goes round' raping ain;t fit to be a soldier, let alone described as human

Pretty much, any soldier that goes round' raping ain;t fit to be a soldier, let alone described as human
How much of this is rape and how much of it is quassi prostitution?