NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358585,00.html

Oh nooo! Fox news! Oh nooo! I can't believe it because it's Fox!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3145-2004Dec15.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4521481.stm

Blah blah quit bitching about Fox and talk about the article.

Oh nooo! Fox news! Oh nooo! I can't believe it because it's Fox!

[...]

Blah blah quit bitching about Fox and talk about the article.
:rolleyes:

Dude, did anything of the 5 pages of discussion in the thread you're so subtly referring to even get through to you?

Then why did you post the Fox link in the first place?

Back to the topic...

I think it is horrible. Something needs to be done about this, and UN coruption in general.

:rolleyes:

Dude, did anything of the 5 pages of discussion in the thread you're so subtly referring to even get through to you?

Nope.

Then why did you post the Fox link in the first place?

Because I know people will pitch a fit about it and it amuses me when they do.

I propose forced castration for all U.N wartime people. There, problem solved. If people stop signing up, we can just kidnap them from off the street.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358585,00.html

Oh nooo! Fox news! Oh nooo! I can't believe it because it's Fox!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3145-2004Dec15.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4521481.stm

Blah blah quit bitching about Fox and talk about the article.

Rhyno, sweetie, really? More on Fox? Didn´t you learn the first time? Fox sucks, and that´s final.

Back to the topic...

I think it is horrible. Something needs to be done about this, and UN coruption in general.

well, political corruption anyway. it's not just localized in the UN.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358585,00.html

Oh nooo! Fox news! Oh nooo! I can't believe it because it's Fox!
It's okay guys, it's an Associated Press article!

*Blatently just said that to annoy RhynoD*

Anyway, Peacekeeping, very very good, Child Molesting, very very bad. It's a moral grey. Rather like Hitler's Vegetarianism. *godWIN*

Let's hope the Child molesting stops? 0_o

Click Stand;13723130']I propose forced castration for all U.N wartime people. There, problem solved. If people stop signing up, we can just kidnap them from off the street.

Press ganging FTW.

Rhyno, sweetie, really? More on Fox? Didn´t you learn the first time? Fox sucks, and that´s final.

That and the Daily Phail. Can't wait for this to pop up. Field day on how Britain is waay morally superior, followed by a Littlejohn rant on how it's the Health and Safety Executive's fault in some way or another.

That over, it's horrific, some of these stories. I've had a glance through the StC report ("No-one to Turn to"), and it appears it's not an isolated spate of incidents.

This is the point where the UN finally needs to show some balls and prove it's not as pointless at doing anything like we all believe it is.

Question: Assuming Fox is as biased as you say (It is biased, but I think you exaggerate the extent), does that mean that the essential verifiable facts in a story they report are bunk even when you disagree with the analysis? Any news analysis involves interpretation through the worldview of the reporter no matter how hard the reporter may try to be objective.

Another point: why not have news programs with a stated bias instead of the futile attempt at objectivity? "This is our philosophy, and it drives our selection of stories and our determination of what events we cover." It's what happens now everywhere, but no one admits it. Fox just has a different bias and doesn't hide it as well as the other news agencies.

Regarding the article: The UN is wholly evil. Blue helmets make damn good targets :D

Because I know people will pitch a fit about it and it amuses me when they do.
Ever wondered why people react in that way, it wouldn't be because Fox is a little biased, would it?:rolleyes:

It's okay guys, it's an Associated Press article!

*Blatently just said that to annoy RhynoD*

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/8455000/ngbbs44328a289dd3d.jpg

Ever wondered why people react in that way, it wouldn't be because Fox is a little biased, would it?:rolleyes:

Coming from the Stalinist?


More importantly, all news is biased.

Ever wondered why people react in that way, it wouldn't be because Fox is a little biased, would it?:rolleyes:

Comrade Andaras, no kidding?!

Of course Fox is biased, and it will remain so. Have you ever seen a network be it from the US or from Europe who isn´t biased and lacks an agenda? You´re a smart Commie, dearie. Make us proud.:fluffle:

Comrade Andaras, no kidding?!

Of course Fox is biased, and it will remain so. Have you ever seen a network be it from the US or from Europe who isn´t biased and lacks an agenda? You´re a smart Commie, dearie. Make us proud.:fluffle:

The network that shows sessions of Congress and stuff. They don't really report, just show reality. I can't think of how that would be biased.

Then again maybe you're only including networks that people actually watch. :)

Click Stand;13723191']The network that shows sessions of Congress and stuff. They don't really report, just show reality. I can't think of how that would be biased.

Then again maybe you're only including networks that people actually watch. :)

I wouldn't call that news so much as closed-circuit...

Click Stand;13723191']The network that shows sessions of Congress and stuff. They don't really report, just show reality. I can't think of how that would be biased.

Then again maybe you're only including networks that people actually watch. :)

Exactly. I´m referring to networks people ¨actually¨ watch.;)

But if there was mud-wrestling between the congressmen, oof! I would watch it in a jiffy!!!:p

Exactly. I´m referring to networks people ¨actually¨ watch.;)

But if there was mud-wrestling between the congressmen, oof! I would watch it in a jiffy!!!:p

Wrinkly old white dudes mud-wrestling.....I'm not seeing the attraction...

Wrinkly old white dudes mud-wrestling.....I'm not seeing the attraction...

Oh, goodness no! Not wrinkly old American dudes. No! But the young hunks. You must have them in Congress too. Right?:eek:

Oh, goodness no! Not wrinkly old American dudes. No! But the young hunks. You must have them in Congress too. Right?:eek:

Couldn't tell you. Ask an American.

Coming from the Stalinist?


More importantly, all news is biased.
I'd really prefer if you'd avoid the S word, it's a little over the top, I prefer just Marxist-Leninist.

I'd really prefer if you'd avoid the S word, it's a little over the top, I prefer just Marxist-Leninist.

If the boot fits...

More importantly: yes, Fox is biased. Anything poignant to add?

Couldn't tell you. Ask an American.

Well then, Americans: What say you?

If the boot fits...

More importantly: yes, Fox is biased. Anything poignant to add?

What is it with the boot?! What in tarnation is it with The Boot?! I hate the boot!

Is that a Commie reference?

I hate The Boot!!:mad:


I have deflated. I´m better now.:p

Oh noooo! It's Fox! I won't believe it because it's Fox! :p.

With all seriousness, this only adds to the argument that the UN needs to be taken out behind the shed, and done what needs to be done. *Nods empheticly*

What is it with the boot?! What in tarnation is it with The Boot?! I hate the boot!

Is that a Commie reference?

I hate The Boot!!:mad:


I have deflated. I´m better now.:p

Thar's a snake in my boot (http://www.lair2000.net/ToyStory1/woodylh.gif)!

Alternatively:
Das Boot!

Alternatively alternatively:
I'm tired of these motherf*ing snakes in my motherf*ing boot!

Alternatively alternatively alternatively:
I'm tired of these motherf*ing stalinist in my motherf*ing boot!

Thar's a snake in my boot (http://www.lair2000.net/ToyStory1/woodylh.gif)!

Alternatively:
Das Boot!

Alternatively alternatively:
I'm tired of these motherf*ing snakes in my motherf*ing boot!

Alternatively alternatively alternatively:
I'm tired of these motherf*ing stalinist in my motherf*ing boot!


*grabs her temples and screams as Hitler would if he saw who was the best director in Hollywood, a Jew*

IIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! I hate the boot!!! I do! I do!!!!

Oh noooo! It's Fox! I won't believe it because it's Fox! :p.

With all seriousness, this only adds to the argument that the UN needs to be taken out behind the shed, and done what needs to be done. *Nods empheticly*

Actually by posting the Fox link RhynoD has ensured this thread won't get back on topic for some pages now.

Well then, Americans: What say you?

No, congress is mostly made up of rich old white dudes, so no dice in the mud wrestling business.

Actually by posting the Fox link RhynoD has ensured this thread won't get back on topic for some pages now.

Threads I post in are on topic?

Alternatively alternatively alternatively alternatively:
I'm tired of these motherf*ing stalinists in DAS BOOT!


Also, is it my fault NSG has to take 3 pages to get over the fact that I posted a link to Fox?

Click Stand;13723296']No, congress is mostly made up of rich old white dudes, so no dice in the mud wrestling business.

But if we make them champion their hot college interns...

Click Stand;13723296']No, congress is mostly made up of rich old white dudes, so no dice in the mud wrestling business.

Awww, that sucks. I even got meself some pop corn and soda...:(

I told the UN that they needed to loosen up a bit, maybe get more action.

This is not what I meant. At all.

I was referring to always being at odds with eachother and never actually doing much.
Bunch of perverts they are.

Threads I post in are on topic?

Alternatively alternatively alternatively alternatively:
I'm tired of these motherf*ing stalinists in DAS BOOT!


Also, is it my fault NSG has to take 3 pages to get over the fact that I posted a link to Fox?


I love you, Rhyno! I do!!

*rolls around the floor laughing*

the solution is simple. Disband the UN have all other nations give money to the US to provide peace keeping operations aroudn the world.

Trust the US's judgment on where military intervention is needed.
Sometimes at US discretion the rest of Nato can come too.

You'll notice this isn't much of a thread.

If US soldiers had been raping kids, and forcing them to be prostitutes in exchange for aid, this thread would already be 1500 posts long, full of vitriol.

Since it's the UN fucking up, most here can't admit that the UN is a failed, corrupt, and terrible institution at every possible level. So you won't see too many replies here.

This is pretty disgraceful, really. Not the first time Morocco has been accused of this kind of thing, not entirely sure why they're even allowed to do peacekeeping work to be quite honest.

the solution is simple. Disband the UN have all other nations give money to the US to provide peace keeping operations aroudn the world.

This is the silliest idea I've ever heard. What do you consider the US to be? World Police, Team America? The UN, although fastidious in nature, it's a necessary organization.

Trust the US's judgment on where military intervention is needed.
Sometimes at US discretion the rest of Nato can come too.

Trust the US's judgement on where military intervention is needed? Right, right. The US can't even rule itself. And you want us to trust it's judgement? You should lay off the drugs, mate. Seriously. And NATO is just as necessary as the UN. Disbanding both will cause a lot of problems.

Leave the US to deal with it's own problems and the rest of the nations do do the same. I assure you, I do not want another 'Iraqi war' conflict in another country, which is probably what the US will sponsor.

Since it's the UN fucking up, most here can't admit that the UN is a failed, corrupt, and terrible institution at every possible level. So you won't see too many replies here.
Don't be stupid, the UN, much like the League of Nations, has done an excellent job in terms of cutting down on dangerous diseases across the world. Taking out smallpox was extremely excellent, for example.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358585,00.html


Wow.. the UN is starting to look more and more like the Republicans :(

Don't be stupid, the UN, much like the League of Nations, has done an excellent job in terms of cutting down on dangerous diseases across the world. Taking out smallpox was extremely excellent, for example.

They've also stood by and essentially sanctioned mass murder. More than once.

"Peacekeeper" is usually meant to imply "witness to your slaughter". They aren't peacekeepers at all.

Take Lebanon right now - they're supposed to prevent smuggling of arms from Syria to Hezbollah - but they aren't doing anything at all to stop it.

So, the arms will pile up - great job of peacekeeping there. They might as well have bought the arms themselves and delivered them to Hezbollah.

This is the silliest idea I've ever heard. What do you consider the US to be? World Police, Team America? The UN, although fastidious in nature, it's a necessary organization.

It is not needed at all. It is a waste of money, and now only serves to give countries with nothing better to do then bitch about how europe and the US have money and they don't a forum where we have to listen.


Trust the US's judgement on where military intervention is needed? Right, right. The US can't even rule itself. And you want us to trust it's judgement? You should lay off the drugs, mate. Seriously. And NATO is just as necessary as the UN. Disbanding both will cause a lot of problems.

Leave the US to deal with it's own problems and the rest of the nations do do the same. I assure you, I do not want another 'Iraqi war' conflict in another country, which is probably what the US will sponsor.

Nato is more needed then the UN. they are by and large a good organization and what should replace the UN, decisive just and not full of a bunch of whiny nations that hate Europe and the US for being successful.
funny didn't Europe drag the US into Yugoslavia ?? I mean if we were going to let everyone do their own thing then by all means we should have let them

They've also stood by and essentially sanctioned mass murder. More than once.
There have been a couple, and genuinely a couple of extremely bad incidents in the UN's peacekeeping history. One was the utter débâcle that was the massacre, the name of which I forget, in Bosnia, which was no fault of the peacekeepers, more that the people in the town were unarmed aid workers, and the nearest peacekeepers were a half-strength company of lightly armed mechanised infantry about 30km away, which was nothing compared to the thousands of militiamen.

The other was Rwanda, caused in part by a complete lack of US presence, and the French being ill-equipped to do their jobs.
"Peacekeeper" is usually meant to imply "witness to your slaughter".
Absolutely untrue, the UK especially has been excellent in Sierra Leone, stopping the civil war pretty quickly, as well as working with KFOR/UNPROFOR to help out in the messier side of things in Kosovo. Their presence in the Congo is also extremely helpful to the situation, and were it not for the fact that only the British, Dutch, Germans and French are even remotely interested in training and arming their troops properly for peacekeeping, the situation would be even better.
They aren't peacekeepers at all.
*sighs*

I think you just don't really like the UN because you see it as a waste of time and US money.
Take Lebanon right now - they're supposed to prevent smuggling of arms from Syria to Hezbollah - but they aren't doing anything at all to stop it.

So, the arms will pile up - great job of peacekeeping there. They might as well have bought the arms themselves and delivered them to Hezbollah.
I think they're understandably pissed off with Israel after getting shelled more than once in the past, especially since the Israelis aren't honouring their side of the peacekeeping agreements regarding cross-border flights. Were it not for the fact that most of the SAM batteries are being controlled by the Germans, the Israelis would have lost some planes by now for sure.

It is not needed at all. It is a waste of money, and now only serves to give countries with nothing better to do then bitch about how europe and the US have money and they don't a forum where we have to listen.

I difer from you greatly. The UN is needed. And why? Because it's an organization that has the interest of all those countries that to you, whine about not having enough because the great powers take everything. Precisely, the UN is there so counties like EU and US do not abuse their power and "good will".


Nato is more needed then the UN. they are by and large a good organization and what should replace the UN, decisive just and not full of a bunch of whiny nations that hate Europe and the US for being successful.
funny didn't Europe drag the US into Yugoslavia ?? I mean if we were going to let everyone do their own thing then by all means we should have let them

Unlike you, I never took off importance on either NATO or the UN. They're both immensely needed to curb the inetersts of other nations that might bring conflict.

Your country isn't letting other nations deal with their own crap, is it now?

There have been a couple, and genuinely a couple of extremely bad incidents in the UN's peacekeeping history. One was the utter débâcle that was the massacre, the name of which I forget, in Bosnia, which was no fault of the peacekeepers, more that the people in the town were unarmed aid workers, and the nearest peacekeepers were a half-strength company of lightly armed mechanised infantry about 30km away, which was nothing compared to the thousands of militiamen.

The other was Rwanda, caused in part by a complete lack of US presence, and the French being ill-equipped to do their jobs.

So it is our fault for not going in there?
But in other wars it is our fault for going ?

Absolutely untrue, the UK especially has been excellent in Sierra Leone, stopping the civil war pretty quickly, as well as working with KFOR/UNPROFOR to help out in the messier side of things in Kosovo. Their presence in the Congo is also extremely helpful to the situation, and were it not for the fact that only the British, Dutch, Germans and French are even remotely interested in training and arming their troops properly for peacekeeping, the situation would be even better.

KFOR was NATO and that was the reason Kosovo was cleaned up quickly.

*sighs*

I think you just don't really like the UN because you see it as a waste of time and US money.

yes it does.

I think they're understandably pissed off with Israel after getting shelled more than once in the past, especially since the Israelis aren't honouring their side of the peacekeeping agreements regarding cross-border flights. Were it not for the fact that most of the SAM batteries are being controlled by the Germans, the Israelis would have lost some planes by now for sure.
neither side is honoring best we with draw the peace keepers and let them resolve this conflict.

So it is our fault for not going in there?
But in other wars it is our fault for going ?
Aye, sometimes you're needed for a war and sometimes you're not. Incredible, isn't it? Could have done with US troops in Rwanda, because there was a genuine need for a lot of men with guns kicking about.
KFOR was NATO and that was the reason Kosovo was cleaned up quickly.
UNPROFOR did a lot of good work too.
yes it does.
?
neither side is honoring best we with draw the peace keepers and let them resolve this conflict.
Bugger that. Just put the peacekeepers under the control of people who don't have any unnecessary hang-ups about shooting at Jews, but that will also take a firmer line with Hezbollah.

Aye, sometimes you're needed for a war and sometimes you're not. Incredible, isn't it? Could have done with US troops in Rwanda, because there was a genuine need for a lot of men with guns kicking about.


I think you best let us decide where we want to go.
Because in Rwanda if things took a long time or someone not from the US got killed we as usual would have taken the blame.

UNPROFOR did a lot of good work too.

only on the backs of Nato


Bugger that. Just put the peacekeepers under the control of people who don't have any unnecessary hang-ups about shooting at Jews, but that will also take a firmer line with Hezbollah.

yes lets shoot the one group of people who don't hate us for being westerners, since in all likelihood they only break the rules to defend themselves.

[QUOTE=greed and death;13725320]I think you best let us decide where we want to go.
Because in Rwanda if things took a long time or someone not from the US got killed we as usual would have taken the blame.[QUOTE]

Ah! *slaps forehead* Now I get it. This is why you want the UN disbanded. So others let YOU decide where you want to go because not everyone is worthy of your mighty help. Please...:rolleyes:

Because in Rwanda if things took a long time or someone not from the US got killed we as usual would have taken the blame.
I doubt it. I'm pretty sure that the hundred-thousand or so lives that would have been saved would have made up for that. Obviously there would be some who would say "aww the US should have done more", but there always are. Bear them no heed, but make sure that what you're doing is The Right Thing (tm).
only on the backs of Nato
Seeing as NATO weren't doing any actual aid work which led to things calming down (before the terminally stupid UDI of Kosovo) and the UN was, I'd definitely call it a combined effort.
yes lets shoot the one group of people who don't hate us for being westerners, since in all likelihood they only break the rules to defend themselves.
Damn right, if they break the rules. They were made for a reason.

There have been a couple, and genuinely a couple of extremely bad incidents in the UN's peacekeeping history. One was the utter débâcle that was the massacre, the name of which I forget, in Bosnia, which was no fault of the peacekeepers, more that the people in the town were unarmed aid workers, and the nearest peacekeepers were a half-strength company of lightly armed mechanised infantry about 30km away, which was nothing compared to the thousands of militiamen.
Srebrenica.

I personally love the way people go into auto-flame when anything crops up about the UN.

I note they never criticise the individual countries who supply (and train) the troops who commit these types of crimes. Taking away the responsibility from the very armies the troops are drawn from doesn't address the fundamental issue of discipline.

Srebrenica.
Aye, I remember that. *keeps quiet*

Srebrenica.

I personally love the way people go into auto-flame when anything crops up about the UN.

I note they never criticise the individual countries who supply (and train) the troops who commit these types of crimes.
Ahem, I actually did criticise the individual countries involved with the whole rape crisis. The Dutch who were some 30km from Srebrenica couldn't really do... well... anything, though.

Ahem, I actually did criticise the individual countries involved with the whole rape crisis. The Dutch who were some 30km from Srebrenica couldn't really do... well... anything, though.

I wasn't referring to you. :p Only the Srebrenica part. ;) I know well enough what UN peacekeepers can and can't do.

/father served two tours in Lebanon and one in Namibia as an engineer.
/uncle served one tour in Lebanon as a military doctor.
/grandfather served one tour in Congo/Katanga and one tour in Cyprus

With all seriousness, this only adds to the argument that the UN needs to be taken out behind the shed, and done what needs to be done. *Nods empheticly*
You mean get paid what it's owed by the countries that still owe them money?

I agree!
the solution is simple. Disband the UN have all other nations give money to the US to provide peace keeping operations aroudn the world.
No.

Not that the US would be willing to even contemplate such a thing, mind.

Besides which, you're disregarding the rest of the UN again.

Trust the US's judgment on where military intervention is needed.
Hell no.

The judgement the US has shown has been... severely lacking at times.

You'll notice this isn't much of a thread.
...because the thread has been done before. Because it's still horrible. Because this report follows several others. Because it's not news that it happens, allthough still being horrible. Yes? Quite.

Since it's the UN fucking up, most here can't admit that the UN is a failed, corrupt, and terrible institution at every possible level. So you won't see too many replies here.
Because you're wrong. *shrugs*

They've also stood by and essentially sanctioned mass murder. More than once.
Only in your mind.

"Peacekeeper" is usually meant to imply "witness to your slaughter". They aren't peacekeepers at all.
Bollocks. See Yootopias post.

You'll notice this isn't much of a thread.


And now that you're here its only going to get worse.....


They've also stood by and essentially sanctioned mass murder. More than once.

Bit over an over-simplification, don't you think? I mean its not the IDF in Lebanon we're talking about here.

Didn't the US (amongst others) have a policy of not referring to the Rwandan Genocide as anything other than mass killing so as to avoid a possible obligation to intervene....? Didn't the have the same re Cambodia when they were pals with Pol Pot....?

And seeing as the UN can't act independently of its member states (but its member states can, if the mood takes them, act indepently of it) isn't the blame really on the countries and not the organisation....?

When the massacre in Rwanda was starting, the Belgian commander in charge of the peacekeepers asked for permission to stop the violence.

Isn't that what peacekeeping is all about?

Instead, the man then in charge of Rwandan UN activity, Kofi Annan, in New York, told him that under no circumstances was he to even save the life of one person.

The Belgians came home, and symbolically cut up their UN insignia on the tarmac as they left the plane. They were disgusted.

Kofi could have ordered them to stop it - and the Belgian commander believes that he could have saved some people. But no.

Or did you forget the whole Kosovo/Bosnia thing? Where the UN was useless, and it took Canada and the US to start bombing the crap out of Serbia on their own to get anything to the point where the UN would belatedly arrive at some sort of "peacekeeping"?

Was that last one the fault of the US?

I don't see the UN trying to take over Myanmar - it's best to just talk and talk while hundreds of thousands of people die of thirst and disease in the aftermath of a disaster at the hands of their own government.

It was best that Saddam annihilate 300,000 Kurds and bury them in the desert in a mass grave.

Somalia? Wow, bang up job the UN has done putting that place back together - and not for a lack of the US trying.

Haiti?

Seems that the UN excels in holding meetings and talking until the problem is resolved by people turning up dead.

O dear o dear.....

When the massacre (....)hey were disgusted.
Kofi could have ordered them to stop it - and the Belgian commander believes that he could have saved some people. But no.

Oul Kofi got on the blower himself, did he? Funny, because the Dutch (not Belgian) commander of UNAMIR, says this in his memoir....

Let there be no doubt: the Rwandan genocide was the ultimate responsibility of those Rwandans who planned, ordered, supervised and eventually conducted it. Their extremism was the seemingly indestructible and ugly harvest of years of power struggles and insecurity that had been deftly played on by their former colonial rulers. But the deaths of Rwandans can also be laid at the door of the military genius Paul Kagame, who did not speed up his campaign when the scale of the genocide became clear and even talked candidly with me at several points about the price his fellow Tutsis might have to pay for the cause. Next in line when it comes to responsiblitiy are France, which moved in too late and ended up protecting the genocidaires and permanently destabilizing the region, and the U.S. government, which actively worked against an effective UNAMIR and only got involved to aid the same Hutu refugee population and the genocidaires, leaving the genocide survivors to flounder and suffer. The failings of the UN and Belgium were not in the same league. (p.515)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_international_community_in_the_Rwandan_Genocide
My bold and underline....


Or did you forget the whole Kosovo/Bosnia thing? Where the UN was useless, and it took Canada and the US to start bombing the crap out of Serbia on their own to get anything to the point where the UN would belatedly arrive at some sort of "peacekeeping"?.


....because the US hadn't wanted to get involved and Russia vetoed UN action.....? When Clinton was at last persuaded it went ahead via Nato. Thus, as noted before, they are ever only stopped by the UN when it suits them.


Was that last one the fault of the US?"?.

Countries and not the organisation, remember?


I don't see the UN trying to take over Myanmar - it's best to just talk and talk while hundreds of thousands of people die of thirst and disease in the aftermath of a disaster at the hands of their own government.?.

See above.


It was best that Saddam annihilate 300,000 Kurds and bury them in the desert in a mass grave..?.

Well, that was the rough US policy, since Kissinger cut off aid to them in the mid 70's and had Turkey lock its borders to them.....

What do you consider the US to be? World Police, Team America?

America! Fuck yeah!

America! Fuck yeah!

You! Go back into my boob pocket!!

You! Go back into my boob pocket!!

I can't remember if that's a quote from the movie, but either way, I'll oblige.

I can't remember if that's a quote from the movie, but either way, I'll oblige.

Good lad.:p

Good lad.:p

May I motorboat?

May I motorboat?

If you want to...:D

If you want to...:D

Yes. Yes I do.

The Belgians came home, and symbolically cut up their UN insignia on the tarmac as they left the plane. They were disgusted.
Source showing all Belgian peacekeepers did this?

Or did you forget the whole Kosovo/Bosnia thing? Where the UN was useless, and it took Canada and the US to start bombing the crap out of Serbia on their own to get anything to the point where the UN would belatedly arrive at some sort of "peacekeeping"?
Blame the Security Council - of which the US is a member don't forget.

Was that last one the fault of the US?
Partially yes.

Yes. Yes I do.

Alrighty!

Bump

Bump

I have an idea!:eek:

Rhyno, lets make our own scandal. We'll call it the NSexual Scandal and we'll make Fox cover it. Then, since you adore Fox, you can post the link here so the pedantry begins anew.:D

I have an idea!:eek:

Rhyno, lets make our own scandal. We'll call it the NSexual Scandal and we'll make Fox cover it. Then, since you adore Fox, you can post the link here so the pedantry begins anew.:D

Oy, I only adore Fox because I love how it makes people spend hours bashing it while completely ignoring the fundamental issue.

Oy, I only adore Fox because I love how it makes people spend hours bashing it while completely ignoring the fundamental issue.

Oy, post another link then.

Better not, now that I think about it. People here may take it too seriously, yet again.:p

Blame the Security Council - of which the US is a member don't forget.

the issue with the security council and the Yugoslavian mess was specifically the Russian Veto.
the only thing the US tends to Veto that might be labeled Genocide is the Israel mess.

Oy, post another link then.

Better not, now that I think about it. People here may take it too seriously, yet again.:p

tehre were two other links then the fox news link in the OP

tehre were two other links then the fox news link in the OP

She means start a new thread with a Foxnews story as the subject.

No one cares about sex scandals ... Except for those who have really nothing better to do.

No one cares about sex scandals ... Except for those who have really nothing better to do.

you have no soul.

No one cares about sex scandals ... Except for those who have really nothing better to do.

I'd like to think we all care about the sexual abuse of vulnerable people.

She means start a new thread with a Foxnews story as the subject.

^This^

And it was meant as a joke between Rhyno and me about a Fox bogus story.;)