UN adds rape to list of war tactics

I quote:

"The UN Security Council has voted unanimously in favour of a resolution classifying rape as a weapon of war."

And not before time.

What this actually means is not entirely clear, at least to me; will rape become one of the reasons for UN intervention?

But it is clear that the UN has chosen to take a position. Let's hope they take a stand.

oh nice! I was wondering when rape would be added to our legitimate tactics. This should really decrease our paperwork load.

( )

...


the

FUCK?

not the fuck. the rape. please, use the proper terminology

Argh. Apologies; here's the article.

Sorry.

Okay, so I understand that they're trying to make rape an unconscionable event (not that it isn't already) but doesn't making something a "weapon of war" make it a double-edged blade?

something... about... bush using it... preemptively.... theres a truly awful partisan joke in there SOMEwhere...

What? No. It makes it "something that civilized humans think people shouldn't do to each other."

Am I missing something? Honestly, I'm not sure what the other perspective here is, so fill me in.

You know, maybe this resolution is legitmizing the use of rape as a weapon of war, which giving prior bad behaviour of UN Peace Keepers, wouldn't suprise me in the slightest.

but theyre calling it an act of war, not a war-crime. confused?

You are evidently entirely ignorant of the fact that all UN peacekeepers are soldiers of UN member nations.

I didn't think you could possibly make yourself look more like a horses rectum. I stand corrected.

Fixed

I'm just calling it as I see it.

No, I'm well aware of that. What's your point?

Yeah, thanks for the link to a current article from an unbiased source.

First off, you should understand the use of the quote button. If you reply to individuals, then they will see you're talking to them.

Second, that your point is either entirely dishonest or entirely ignorant.
You blame the UN for the behaviour of its peacekeepers, but the UN has no control over the troops it's given.

That statements ambigous to me. Are you saying they don't have any control over what troops they're given (which is bad), or are you saying they don' t have any control over the troops that have been given(which is worse). Neither case inspires any confidence.

Did you miss the part in your own biased article that says they are suspending and investigating (and since this is two years old, probably arresting and punishing) the offenders?

I meant that the UN has no control over which units its member nations provide to it as peacekeeping forces; nor does it have any control over the training, discipline or command & control structures of the member nations' militaries.

Are you suggesting it should have more control over its member nations' military forces?

You're right, here's something more recent and less biased.

Maybe it should be more discriminating over which nations it chooses to have as members.

John Stewart makes the point better than I ever could.

Last time I checked, people from all walks of life do all kinds of fucked up shit to each other. Priests fuck little boys. Pop singers fuck little boys. Major athletes murder their spouses and get away with it. What is your point?

From the article you posted.

Emphasis added

Name any organization that can predict the future actions of every single one of it's members. They have a policy, they saw a problem, they are taking steps to correct it. Like any large group of people, there are bound to be a few people that are such cockholes that they make everyone look guilty by association. Like when people like yourself are mistaken for an average American, instead of the nauseating minority you are, it makes the rest of us embarrassed and ashamed.

Sorry, my internet doesn't do video at the moment (router problem, I think). Could you provide a transcript? I mean, with some arguments, rather than some theatre?

And, would you like to suggest how a "United Nations" might work, if it could exclude any nation it wanted to?

While you're at it, please explain why the UN is the problem here.

I think the point he is making is that the way the UN is structured it is impossible to actually have for example a human rights council that does not have the worst human rights violators on it. China, Columbia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia. are on the current commission on human rights. China has been blocking the UN from doing anything in it's african sphere of influence that would disrupt it's economic interests.

Mind you this is no different from the BS that any country with that type of power has or would pull with said power, but it also makes counting on the UN to do anything meaningful to be just a pipe dream. The UN should be used for getting countries to sit down and talk to each other, beyond that it should have no other power to say or do anything. Attempting to give it such power only leads to further abuses and problems and puts countries into positions of power that they simply should not have.