NationStates Jolt Archive

...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6159923.stm

"Sarah (not her real name) is a fragile looking girl of 16. She says that two years ago, she was raped by a Brazilian soldier serving with the UN mission there."

"Soldiers serving with the UN have immunity from local laws and it's up to their home countries to discipline them. More often than not, they're simply repatriated and the UN has little information about what, if anything, happens to them then."

The UN peacekeeping forces usually come from nations which are still a bit iffy; Brazil, India, those kind of countries.

...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6159923.stm

"Sarah (not her real name) is a fragile looking girl of 16. She says that two years ago, she was raped by a Brazilian soldier serving with the UN mission there."

"Soldiers serving with the UN have immunity from local laws and it's up to their home countries to discipline them. More often than not, they're simply repatriated and the UN has little information about what, if anything, happens to them then."

There's a rapist in the UN army?

Hmm.
I suppose that makes it fit in with every other army on Earth...
Except maybe Luxembourg's.

A Brazilian soldier raped a teenager.
That Brazilian soldier serves under the UN flag.
Ipso facto, all UN soldiers rape children.

I'm just not seeing it.

There's a rapist in the UN army?

Hmm.
I suppose that makes it fit in with every other army on Earth...
Except maybe Luxembourg's.

The UN has an army? What the UN has are donated troops, becuase with all the grand talk and high moral fiber, the founding nations weren't about to create a extranational organization with actual power. If UN troops commit crimes in the countries where they are stationed, they should be prosecuted there. US troops are liable to prosecution in countries where they are stationed, why should UN troops get a walk?

There's a rapist in the UN army?

Hmm.
I suppose that makes it fit in with every other army on Earth...
Except maybe Luxembourg's.

That is one of the most horrific, and underreported, consequences of warfare: the battleground of women's bodies.

The raping of the women by the conquering army. It is such a consistent theme in human warfare that it makes you wonder if it hardwired into our genetic code, or if it is a byproduct of the military socialisation process.

I hope that inclusion of women into combat forces will help limit this atrocity.

And if anyone wants to know: No, I do not believe that modern western militaries are exempt from this, though I hope that it is less prevalent.

The UN has an army? What the UN has are donated troops, becuase with all the grand talk and high moral fiber, the founding nations weren't about to create a extranational organization with actual power. If UN troops commit crimes in the countries where they are stationed, they should be prosecuted there. US troops are liable to prosecution in countries where they are stationed, why should UN troops get a walk?

They shouldn't. I'm just saying that people who use these arguments against the UN are usually the people who are blindly devoted to the American Army.

And the UN should have a standing army. Who knows, maybe when this new guy comes he'll make one.

The UN peacekeeping forces usually come from nations which are still a bit iffy; Brazil, India, those kind of countries.

What "kind?" Non-Whites? Non-Germanic? Non-Aryan Superman Fanboywank?

And the UN should have a standing army. Who knows, maybe when this new guy comes he'll make one.

What are they going to use, mercenaries? The reason the UN relies upon loaned troops is because it has no means of raising its own army, obviously.

A Brazilian soldier raped a teenager.
That Brazilian soldier serves under the UN flag.
Ipso facto, all UN soldiers rape children.

I'm just not seeing it.

There are numerous accounts (such as those mentioned in that article, even watched by the BBC who, of course because they are sick perverts that think child abuse is funny, did nothing about it) of UN soldiers having sex with children - which is, even if the child apparently 'consents', of course child rape

What are they going to use, mercenaries? The reason the UN relies upon loaned troops is because it has no means of raising its own army, obviously.

I'm not sure. If it were to recruit like a normal army in its Member States (imagine ads during your favourite soap of guys joining and serving under the UN Flag and ads in the Newspapers with Logos like "Many Coutries. One United Nations." stuff) there could be quite a large turn out (not like the UN doesnt have the money to finance that...), I mean, I'd rather be a UN Peacekeeper than a British or Irish Soldier.

The UN peacekeeping forces usually come from nations which are still a bit iffy; Brazil, India, those kind of countries.

I can take serious offense at that. WTF do you know about Brazil? (or India for that matter.)

If there is any evidence that a Brazilian soldier raped anyone, let alone a juvenile, that soldier will face prosecution here in Brazil. There is too strong a fear of the military reassuming a position of immunity in the country as a whole for such an act to go unpunished.

A Brazilian soldier raped a teenager.
That Brazilian soldier serves under the UN flag.
Ipso facto, all UN soldiers rape children.

I'm just not seeing it.

The situation is disgraceful.

Its just as,or more disgusting when US troops are guilty of the crime.

Its also disgusting when people refer to the entire group as commiting war crimes or atrocities as if its common and standard procedure.

Those found guilty should be subject to full punishment of military law.

I'm not sure. If it were to recruit like a normal army in its Member States (imagine ads during your favourite soap of guys joining and serving under the UN Flag and ads in the Newspapers with Logos like "Many Coutries. One United Nations." stuff) there could be quite a large turn out (not like the UN doesnt have the money to finance that...), I mean, I'd rather be a UN Peacekeeper than a British or Irish Soldier.

I'm going to hazard a guess here...I think lot of countries would have a real problem with their citizens joining an armed force that isn't their own.

I can take serious offense at that. WTF do you know about Brazil? (or India for that matter.)

Oh, come on. Are you honestly going to tell me that troops from, to be blunt, a poorer nation like Brazil or India are going to have the same level of discipline as troops from the UK or Germany? Or, for that matter, that those countries will be entirely willing to prosecute their own men?

I'm going to hazard a guess here...I think lot of countries would have a real problem with their citizens joining an armed force that isn't their own.

I don't know that there's anything against it in US law, at least as long as the Other Army isn't in direct conflict with the United States. In both World Wars, Americans joined the British Army before the US got involved, and served overseas. Of course, the Military Commissions Act might have a sneaky little paragraph somewhere about this.

What "kind?" Non-Whites? Non-Germanic? Non-Aryan Superman Fanboywank?

Can you ever open your mouth without "OMG HEZ AA NAAAAZZI!!1!" coming out of it?

I can take serious offense at that. WTF do you know about Brazil? (or India for that matter.)

If there is any evidence that a Brazilian soldier raped anyone, let alone a juvenile, that soldier will face prosecution here in Brazil. There is too strong a fear of the military reassuming a position of immunity in the country as a whole for such an act to go unpunished.

Thanks for stepping up AB...once again, there is the assumption that anywhere not *insert poster's country* is BAD, and everyone in the world should recognise it.

By the way folks, Canadian soldiers tortured Somalians.

No country is free of sick bastards.

Oh, come on. Are you honestly going to tell me that troops from, to be blunt, a poorer nation like Brazil or India are going to have the same level of discipline as troops from the UK or Germany? Or, for that matter, that those countries will be entirely willing to prosecute their own men?

Yes.

They have to have the same levels of discipline, after all they serve the same function and the discipline is necessary to that function.

Secondly, the military here are far less protected by the law than they are in places such as the UK or Germany. Brazil is certainly willing to hold its military personnel responsible under the law. Remember we were a military dictatorship less than 30 years ago, and no one wants that back. The military has to be accountable here.

Can you ever open your mouth without "OMG HEZ AA NAAAAZZI!!1!" coming out of it?

Can you ever go through one thread without posting bigoted garbage about how White Europeans are superior in general, and specifically Germans?

I don't know that there's anything against it in US law, at least as long as the Other Army isn't in direct conflict with the United States. In both World Wars, Americans joined the British Army before the US got involved, and served overseas. Of course, the Military Commissions Act might have a sneaky little paragraph somewhere about this.

actually they do. If a US citizen enlists in a foreign army his citizenship gets revoked.

I am not sure what happens with dual citizenship folks whose other citizenship requires service, like Thailand or Israel.

I'm going to hazard a guess here...I think lot of countries would have a real problem with their citizens joining an armed force that isn't their own.

Nevermind having real problems going to the expense of feeding, housing, or training said force (which they won't have a monopoly of control over). Who does it belong to and where does it go? People need to remember that the United Nations has is not a government of any sort, and has no sovereign territory of its own.

Plus, there's that whole "supposed to promote world peace" thing.

I don't know that there's anything against it in US law, at least as long as the Other Army isn't in direct conflict with the United States. In both World Wars, Americans joined the British Army before the US got involved, and served overseas. Of course, the Military Commissions Act might have a sneaky little paragraph somewhere about this.

Yeah. I think advertising would be a definite "no", though.

What if the UN does get into a situation where one nation decides to oppose it, however? What do the citizens from that nation do, now that they're technically on the enemy side?


Meh. This would never get through the security council anyway, so speculation is probably worthless.

Oh, come on. Are you honestly going to tell me that troops from, to be blunt, a poorer nation like Brazil or India are going to have the same level of discipline as troops from the UK or Germany? Or, for that matter, that those countries will be entirely willing to prosecute their own men?Jesus..now economic status determines morality? Get a grip. Come up with some evidence to support yourself.

Can you ever go through one thread without posting bigoted garbage about how White Europeans are superior in general, and specifically Germans?

The UN peacekeeping forces usually come from nations which are still a bit iffy; Brazil, India, those kind of countries.

How you equated that will "Ve ist der Master Race! Death to the Untermenschen!", I'll never know.

Nevermind having real problems going to the expense of feeding, housing, or training said force (which they won't have a monopoly of control over). Who does it belong to and where does it go? People need to remember that the United Nations has is not a government of any sort, and has no sovereign territory of its own.

Plus, there's that whole "supposed to promote world peace" thing.

'xactly.

Multiland, have some commentary in your OP next time rather than just a cut and paste snippet. And a less inflammatory and misleading title wouldn't go amiss either.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia