View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

The U.S. pays more than its ‘fair share’ to the UN

Posted: May 5, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: May 5, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

On Sunday, The Signal posted a letter from Dan Frye lauding the UN and supporting our country’s participation in that organization. 

As part of that letter he wrote, “The U.S. has fallen behind on its dues to UN peacekeeping ...”

As far as I’m concerned, “UN” stands for Useless Nations.

It’s nothing but a “We Hate America” club, heavily funded by us and located in our country, allowing tin-pot dictators and banana republics a forum in which they can excoriate us to their hearts’ content while at the same time trying to figure out some way to get their mitts on even more of our money.

As to “peacekeeping dues,” if anything underlines the uselessness of the UN, it’s its “peacekeeping” efforts.

Those blue-helmeted troops in war zones don’t do anything other than stand there impotently while the country they’re in burns to the ground around them.

Rwanda, Somalia, Angola, Afghanistan ... there’s a long list of “peacekeeping” failures.

The very few times they actually do accomplish anything occur because this country — the USofAthat’s supposedly “behind” on its peacekeeping dues — foots the bill to put in place our own military forces willing and able to actually engage anyone. 

Further, we alone fund 22 percent of the UN’s budget and 28 percent of its “peacekeeping” budget, not inclusive of our own military expenditures.

I think we’re paying far more than our “fair share” for such a ridiculous and hostile organization; we pay twice as much as the next largest “contributor,” Japan, at 10.8 percent.

Frankly, I’d like to see them kicked out of this country, “relocated” to Geneva, maybe.

Let them hate us from somewhere else.

Comments

tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 9:05 a.m.

The latest UN absurdity:

Iran wins seat on U.N. body that presses for women’s rights
By Cheryl K. Chumley-The Washington Times Friday, April 25, 2014

Iran won seats on five subcommittees of the U.N. Economic and Social Council earlier this week, including one to the Commission on the Status of Women — a body tasked with pressing for women’s rights around the world.

At the same time, the United Nations announced that this year’s priorities at UNESCO would be to further “the future of humanitarian affairs” by working toward “greater inclusiveness,” Breitbart reported.

The United States sent out a statement of condemnation about Iran’s appointment to the committees, calling it a farce that a nation with an egregious human rights record could actually contribute anything of value, Breitbart reported.

In a statement, U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power said: “The unopposed candidacy of Iran, where authorities regularly detain human rights defenders, subjecting many to torture, abuse and violations of due process, is a particularly troubling outcome of today’s election.”

Even the United Nations is on record as doubting Iran’s ability to uphold basic human rights, as well as women’s freedoms, inside its own border. Earlier this month, a U.N. human rights official petitioned for Iran to halt the planned execution of Reyhaneh Jabbari, sentenced for murder but who claims she was raped by a former Iranian intelligence official, Breitbart reported.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/25/iran-wins-seat-un-body-presses-womens-rights/#ixzz30rDq2gD3


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 2:48 p.m.

I don’t expect the super nationalist conservatives that dominate this site to support the UN but it appears these folks are clearly out of step with the ‘American public’ as these polls show:

Poll Shows Overwhelming Voter Support for the United Nations
http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/news-room/press-releases/poll-shows-overwhelming-voter.html

85% of voters say it is important the U.S. maintain an active role in the UN - The majority of Americans maintain a favorable perception of the UN

May 24, 2011

The majority of American voters continue to demonstrate strong support for the United Nations. Results of public opinion research released today by the United Nations Foundation and its sister organization, the Better World Campaign, found that American voters overwhelmingly believe the United Nations is an important organization in which the United States needs to maintain an active role (85%).


Americans Support the United Nations
By Keith PorterMay 16, 2007
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/b/2007/05/16/americans-support-the-united-nations.htm

The American public does not merely tolerate the existence of the United Nations. Large majorities actually want the world body to have more muscle. This according to a poll from WorldPublicOpinion.org and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

According to the poll, 79% of Americans view strengthening the United Nations as a "very" or "somewhat" important foreign policy goal. "While leaders of nation states may be wary of giving the United Nations more power it is clear that publics around the world are comfortable with the idea of a stronger U.N.," said Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org.


Poll: 90% of Americans support United Nations
By: Guest Opinion October 28, 2013 , 8:57 am
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/10/28/poll-90-of-americans-support-united-nations/

A new poll out this week has found that nearly 9 in 10 voters believe it’s important for the U.S. to maintain an active role in the United Nations. I’m one of them.

With U.N. Day on Oct. 24, this new poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the U.N.’s work, from overseeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons, to building peace in countries emerging from conflict, to improving access to vaccines globally. The findings were released by the Better World Campaign, an organization that works to strengthen the U.S.-U.N. relationship.

The U.N. serves our own national security and foreign policy interests in a big way. By taking an active role in the U.N., U.S. leaders can ensure that American priorities are heard on the world’s stage, including advancing democracy, human rights, and emergency humanitarian aid in times of need. These findings should resonate with all of us — especially our elected officials.


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 3:35 p.m.

Tech,

You sound like most anti-UN conservatives and indeed most hard line nationalist from any nation that chooses to exists apart from all nations.

I’m surprised you haven’t cited Japan and Germany in that we shouldn’t be ‘talking’ to them due to the atrocities they committed in WW2.

In any event, you have to get people of any nation regardless of their history ‘involved’ in the process of understanding human rights and not just ignore them.

It worked great for Japan and Germany, didn’t it?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 5, 2014 3:59 p.m.

That's nice, Indy.

However, I don't happen to form my opinions based on polls. I'm not your ObaMessiah (thank God for me!), nor an Establishment GOP political hack, for that matter.

Here's another "poll" for ya: 90% of lemmings think it's a good idea to drown themselves. Doesn't mean it actually IS a good idea.



(And before you drone an about whether or not lemmings actually commit mass suicide, that's what's known as a "rhetorical device". A "metaphor". Now I've saved all our mythical "Guest Readers" another dull endless monologue from you)
.
.
.
--edited.


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:07 p.m.

"In any event, you have to get people of any nation regardless of their history ‘involved’ in the process of understanding human rights and not just ignore them" - Indy

Understanding that Iran is ruled by an oligarchy of mullahs that condone stoning of raped women as adulterers, what contributions do you think they'll make at the UN?

Have you contacted our errant State Dept. and advised them with your expert, nuanced statecraft?


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:58 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: That's nice, Indy.

However, I don't happen to form my opinions based on polls. I'm not your ObaMessiah (thank God for me!), nor an Establishment GOP political hack, for that matter.

Indy: Yes, polls just show what the ‘people’ believe right or wrong . . . but they are cited here by conservatives routinely even if the polling questions are ‘designed’ to be misleading!

And boy don’t those ‘polls’ mean a lot to each party each election!

But likewise, they do show where the public is at on issues . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Here's another "poll" for ya: 90% of lemmings think it's a good idea to drown themselves. Doesn't mean it actually IS a good idea.

Indy: I think most Americans like the UN since it does exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe.

The only faults expressed by conservatives are the same issues the US can’t resolve either except by war.

Thankfully, Obama has helped our nation’s stature in the world by avoiding armed conflict and putting our nation’s youth at risk using diplomacy . . . which is brutally criticized by leading republicans in congress.


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 5:02 p.m.

Tech wrote: "In any event, you have to get people of any nation regardless of their history ‘involved’ in the process of understanding human rights and not just ignore them" - Indy

Indy: Understanding that Iran is ruled by an oligarchy of mullahs that condone stoning of raped women as adulterers, what contributions do you think they'll make at the UN?

Indy: Yes, the poster correctly takes notice of what happens when the dominate religion takes over a nation and creates a theocracy.

The bigger question, however, is why does the poster accept Japan and Germany who did atrocious things in WW2 . . .

It appears a lot of Iranians are looking for ways out of their theocracy but realize that voicing that opinion in public can be a death sentence . . .

So it’s important that the movement toward a more civilized Iran start at places like the UN where we can help influence and build support within Iran to eventually take their place along nations like Japan and Germany. . .


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:04 p.m.

The bigger "bigger" question is why you don't recognize the UN placement of egregious offenders of human rights on Human Rights councils as farcical.

Have you contacted the State Dept yet to mansplain it to Ambassador Rice?

Also, please update the rubes here on the status of Obama's, how did you describe it…ah, yes, "masterful" multilateral strategy of ridding the Syrian Regime of their chemical weapons. Here's a link so you can break it down for us in ways that display your comprehensive command of the English Language:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/20/france-syrian-forces-chemical-weapons


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:18 p.m.

Tech wrote: The bigger "bigger" question is why you don't recognize the UN placement of egregious offenders of human rights on Human Rights councils as farcical.

Indy: I recognize the situation as one of getting the line of ‘communication’ going in the same manner the US ‘worked’ with representatives of Japan and Germany.

Tech wrote: Have you contacted the State Dept yet to mansplain it to Ambassador Rice?

Indy: I’m sure they are far more involved that you’re making them out not to be . . .

But did you call congressman McKeon?

Tech wrote: Also, please update the rubes here on the status of Obama's, how did you describe it…ah, yes, "masterful" multilateral strategy of ridding the Syrian Regime of their chemical weapons. Here's a link so you can break it down for us in ways that display your comprehensive command of the English Language:

Indy: Thankfully, we have a President now that is willing to use diplomacy versus start the ‘shooting’ which leads to long wars . . . as we saw in both Iraq ( a war that the UN noted that NO WMDS existed in Iraq . . . ) and now ’10 years’ in Afghanistan with little or no results.

Tech wrote: So indeed Obama did a ‘masterful’ job in both Syria and Libya . . .

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/20/france-syrian-forces-chemical-weapons

Indy: So you are advocating we have yet ‘another war’ and enter into a ‘no win’ civil conflict?

That’s ‘your’ solution?

In any event, the chemical weapons are being removed, 90% to date, without a ‘war’ . . . that’s a monumental success for Obama . . . momentous!


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:25 p.m.

"Tech wrote: So indeed Obama did a ‘masterful’ job in both Syria and Libya . . . " - Indy

I didn't write that. I've never mentioned Libya in this thread. Are you posting under the influence? In the future, never attribute your words to me. It's insulting.

"In any event, the chemical weapons are being removed, 90% to date, without a ‘war’ . . . that’s a monumental success for Obama . . . momentous!"

Does your term of "removal" include use on Syrians in their civil war? --edited.


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:32 p.m.

Indy: "I recognize the situation as one of getting the line of ‘communication’ going in the same manner the US ‘worked’ with representatives of Japan and Germany."

Do you now? Please advise when Iran unconditionally surrendered to the USA and allied forces.

If you were in my History class, I'd assign you a remedial essay on false equivalencies.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:35 p.m.

"Indy: I think most Americans like the UN since it does exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe."

LOL

Evidently you didn't read what I actually wrote, particularly about its "peacekeepers", who can't "keep the peace" anywhere they show up. They have a long and pathetic record of abject failure virtually everywhere they go.

In fact, your missives didn't actually address a single issue I actually raised in my LTE. Your "response" is, as usual, completely irrelevant; a complete non sequitur.

I don't CARE about opinion polls, as I already said. What I wrote was a simple truth, and factually correct. So "poll opinions" don't mean a thing, other than that polling "majority" has apparently been hoodwinked.


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:52 p.m.

"Indy: I think most Americans like the UN since it does exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe."

UN must review policy on peacekeepers who abuse -Amnesty

http://www.trust.org/item/?map=un-must-review-policy-on-peacekeepers-who-abuse-amnesty

Heck of a job, UN "Peacekeepers"! Indy approves as indicated in the "all areas" comment above.


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 8:02 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Indy: I think most Americans like the UN since it does exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe."

LOL

Indy: The difficult challenges facing the UN ‘is no laughing matter’ . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Evidently you didn't read what I actually wrote, particularly about its "peacekeepers", who can't "keep the peace" anywhere they show up. They have a long and pathetic record of abject failure virtually everywhere they go.

Indy: Yes, the limited nature of the UN involvement makes it difficult but the US avoidance of the issues that are effecting the unrest globally is outrageous.

Spending almost 10 times the defense dollars of the next 10 or so nations ‘COMBINED’ including China and Russia indicates the type of fiscal malfeasance that the big time defense hawks in the Congress are responsible for.

BrianBaker wrote: In fact, your missives didn't actually address a single issue I actually raised in my LTE. Your "response" is, as usual, completely irrelevant; a complete non sequitur.

Indy: I don’t repeat RNC talking points . . .

BrianBaker wrote: I don't CARE about opinion polls, as I already said. What I wrote was a simple truth, and factually correct. So "poll opinions" don't mean a thing, other than that polling "majority" has apparently been hoodwinked.

Indy: Well, I guess you’re the ‘only one’ . . . but please a lot of what you write isn’t ‘truth’ it’s just your version that is tainted with conservative ideology. The fact that you can’t recognize that is the real problem . . .


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 8:06 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Indy: I think most Americans like the UN since it does exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe."

UN must review policy on peacekeepers who abuse -Amnesty

http://www.trust.org/item/?map=un-must-review-policy-on-peacekeepers-who-abuse-amnesty

Heck of a job, UN "Peacekeepers"! Indy approves as indicated in the "all areas" comment above.

Indy: Yes, there will be problems from individuals or small groups just like in the US military.

Shall I cite the example of the US military ‘person’ that went out and killed innocent Iraqi women?

If you wish to make nonsensical and inappropriate comparisons, there’s little I can help you with in understanding important international issues . . . but again, here to help . . . just ask!


BrianBaker: Posted: May 5, 2014 8:15 p.m.

And more!

The typical focus group tested Dem/socialist talking points! To wit:

Indy: "Thankfully, Obama has helped our nation’s stature in the world by avoiding armed conflict and putting our nation’s youth at risk using diplomacy..."

If you mean "avoiding armed conflict" like abandoning our diplomatic mission in Benghazi when they were under attack by Islamic militants... you're right!

If you mean standing around with his thumb up his butt while Egypt was taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood... you're right!

If you mean letting Russia invade Ukraine... you're right!

If you mean drawing a "red line in the sand" against Syria, then backing away when he was rightfully called to task on exceeding his constitutional authority... you're right!

If you mean drawing down our Pacific fleet and consequently encouraging China and North Korea to rattle their sabers and threaten the Philippines and South Korea respectively... you're right!

Yep! The guy's an absolute MARVEL at "avoiding armed conflict", whether it's proper or not to do so. In fact, you remember Teddy Roosevelt's "Walk softly, and carry a big stick"? Well........ you're ObaMessiah's paraphrased it into "Talk bigly, and carry a soft stick".

Quite the accomplishment, I'm sure.


As to the nation's "stature", you're right again!

He's transformed this once-great world power into an absolute international laughing stock.

I'm so proud........




BrianBaker: Posted: May 5, 2014 8:21 p.m.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The master of the incredible!

"BrianBaker wrote: Evidently you didn't read what I actually wrote, particularly about its "peacekeepers", who can't "keep the peace" anywhere they show up. They have a long and pathetic record of abject failure virtually everywhere they go.

"Indy: Yes, the limited nature of the UN involvement makes it difficult but the US avoidance of the issues that are effecting the unrest globally is outrageous."

"US avoidance"? What are you talking about? AS I WROTE.... Pay attention!... the ONLY time the UN is militarily effective at ANYTHING is when WE do the heavy lifting.


"BrianBaker wrote: In fact, your missives didn't actually address a single issue I actually raised in my LTE. Your "response" is, as usual, completely irrelevant; a complete non sequitur.

"Indy: I don’t repeat RNC talking points . . . "

In other words, you're more than happy to ignore the topic at hand, wander FAR afield babbling irrelevant drivel, and prefer to repeat those focus-group tested talking points of your Dem/socialist brethren.

Got it. No news there. We all already knew that.


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 8:33 p.m.

"Indy: I don’t repeat RNC talking points . . . " - Indy

Of course not! You repeat DNC talking points.


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 8:40 p.m.

"Indy: Yes, there will be problems from individuals or small groups just like in the US military." - Indy

Obviously, you didn't read the article. The abuse is systemic, i.e. Congo, Haiti, East Timor and Ivory Coast with Blue Helmets from multiple nations (not USA). Your dismissal as well as stating: "Indy: I think most Americans like the UN since it does exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe." is disturbing.


Indy: Posted: May 6, 2014 7:28 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: And more!

The typical focus group tested Dem/socialist talking points! To wit:

Indy: "Thankfully, Obama has helped our nation’s stature in the world by avoiding armed conflict and putting our nation’s youth at risk using diplomacy..."

If you mean "avoiding armed conflict" like abandoning our diplomatic mission in Benghazi when they were under attack by Islamic militants... you're right!

Indy: I think as the Libya issue plays out . . . we can go back and redo the Bush W years starting with 911 and other other 10+ embassy attacks that occurred on ‘his’ watch and understand the ‘like abandoning our diplomatic mission’ in those attacks by ‘Islamic militants’.

BrianBaker wrote: If you mean standing around with his thumb up his butt while Egypt was taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood... you're right!

Indy: Yes, those ‘damn free elections’ that allow the citizens of nation to elect their leaders is indeed a real challenge for conservatives that are trying to remove our own small ‘d’ democracy through ‘voter suppression and gerrymandering’.

BrianBaker wrote: If you mean letting Russia invade Ukraine... you're right!

Indy: Yes, if we’re not careful, the conservative hawks in the congress will have us in WW3!

BrianBaker wrote: If you mean drawing a "red line in the sand" against Syria, then backing away when he was rightfully called to task on exceeding his constitutional authority... you're right!

Indy: Yes, Obama has done a masterful job in Syria keeping us out of yet another ‘CIVIL WAR’ and getting the chemical weapons out of that nation without firing a short . . . indeed, well done!

BrianBaker wrote: If you mean drawing down our Pacific fleet and consequently encouraging China and North Korea to rattle their sabers and threaten the Philippines and South Korea respectively... you're right!

Indy: Yes, the US has to dial back our defense spending to pre-Bush W days . . . but indeed, conservatives will always as you done here paint the worse possible scenario as you did in Iraq and Afghanistan with thousands dead, trillions of tax dollars little ‘blown up’ adding to our deficit with no real tangible results other than the civil wars in both those nations are still continuing . . .


Indy: Posted: May 6, 2014 7:29 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Yep! The guy's an absolute MARVEL at "avoiding armed conflict", whether it's proper or not to do so. In fact, you remember Teddy Roosevelt's "Walk softly, and carry a big stick"? Well........ you're ObaMessiah's paraphrased it into "Talk bigly, and carry a soft stick".

Indy: Yes, Obama’s diplomacy is indeed a model for all future Presidents!

BrianBaker wrote: He's transformed this once-great world power into an absolute international laughing stock.

Indy: Spoken like a true conservative, well done! Scaring people to spend even more on defense none of which addresses the economic issues creating the political unrest will be seen by future historians as the COLLOSSAL failure it is . . .

Thanks for the opportunity to see the absolute folly of conservative positions on foreign policy . .


Indy: Posted: May 6, 2014 7:52 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Indy: Hmmmmm wonder where I saw that put forth here in the past . . . hmmmm . . .

BrianBaker wrote: The master of the incredible!

Indy: And the real beauty for you is the help I provide conservatives here is a ‘free service’! Does it get any better than that? Well, ‘The master of the incredible!’

BrianBaker wrote: "BrianBaker wrote: Evidently you didn't read what I actually wrote, particularly about its "peacekeepers", who can't "keep the peace" anywhere they show up. They have a long and pathetic record of abject failure virtually everywhere they go.

"Indy: Yes, the limited nature of the UN involvement makes it difficult but the US avoidance of the issues that are effecting the unrest globally is outrageous."

"US avoidance"? What are you talking about? AS I WROTE.... Pay attention!... the ONLY time the UN is militarily effective at ANYTHING is when WE do the heavy lifting.

Indy: Yes, the failures in both Iraq and Afghanistan to set up any government that has a chance of lasting is basically the same type of problems the UN faces but are a small scale since the UN doesn’t have ‘trillions’ of dollars to throw around.

The fact that both of these nations have tens of people killed daily in sectarian violence makes the ‘MISSION ACOMPLISH’ promo by Bush W just look at the more foolish but it appears you fall ‘right’ in line with such nonsense.

It also demonstrates the lack of any real understanding of foreign affairs by the republican party . . . but I digress . . .

BrianBaker wrote: "BrianBaker wrote: In fact, your missives didn't actually address a single issue I actually raised in my LTE. Your "response" is, as usual, completely irrelevant; a complete non sequitur.

"Indy: I don’t repeat RNC talking points . . . "

In other words, you're more than happy to ignore the topic at hand, wander FAR afield babbling irrelevant drivel, and prefer to repeat those focus-group tested talking points of your Dem/socialist brethren. Got it. No news there. We all already knew that.

Indy: I think most guest readers here realize that conservatives like to constantly assert that you didn’t answer their questions when in fact I do but the answers I give you don’t line up to your conservative ideology based positions . . . thus they are ‘IGNORED’! Please, tell me something I don’t know . . .

In any event, I realize the pain you must have when you realize that your positions represent such a minority view in America made worse since they often don’t address reality and don’t work . . . witness the overwhelming US voter support for the UN that you again, simply 'IGNORE'!

So thanks again for the opportunity to restate the obvious and again note that you have to ‘read’ my posts without the ‘conservative blinders’ to get a real debate going.

Again, I’m here to help you . . .


Indy: Posted: May 6, 2014 7:54 p.m.

Tech wrote: “Indy: I don’t repeat RNC talking points . . . " - Indy

Of course not! You repeat DNC talking points..

Indy: Sorry to disappoint . . . but no.

The overwhelming public support of the UN includes republicans as well . . . but indeed not the libertarian market fundamentalist that make up a minority of that party.


Indy: Posted: May 6, 2014 7:58 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Indy: Yes, there will be problems from individuals or small groups just like in the US military." - Indy

Obviously, you didn't read the article. The abuse is systemic, i.e. Congo, Haiti, East Timor and Ivory Coast with Blue Helmets from multiple nations (not USA). Your dismissal as well as stating: "Indy: I think most Americans like the UN since it does exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe." is disturbing.

Indy: You forgot to mention that the UN has requested US assistance in many of these encounters but many in congress don’t want US troops under UN control . . .

But as I noted to BB, the failures of the US to succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan must be shown to be similar hurdles that the UN faces in smaller conflicts.

So the UN does exceptional work overall but indeed faces the same types of challenges the US does in trying to resolve the various sectarian conflicts around the globe.

Thanks for letting me clear that up for you . . .


ricketzz: Posted: May 7, 2014 6:48 a.m.

The purpose of the UN was to prevent ww3. It has succeeded, thus far.


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 7:32 a.m.

"Thanks for letting me clear that up for you . . . " - Indy

You didn't "clear up" the rape of women and children by UN Blue Helmets, Indy.

NEW DELHI, March 16 (AlertNet) - A one-year jail term given to three Pakistani U.N. peacekeepers for raping a boy in Haiti is a "travesty of justice", said human rights group Amnesty International, urging the world body to tighten its policy on blue helmets guilty of such abuses.

Judges from a Pakistani military tribunal held a trial in Haiti which last week found three peacekeepers had raped a 14-year-old boy in the northern city of Gonaives on Jan. 20.

The three men – who were members of the Pakistani Formed Police Unit serving with the 12,000-strong U.N. Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) – were summarily discharged from the military and sentenced to a year behind bars in their homeland.

But London-based Amnesty said the punishment handed down was too lenient.

http://www.trust.org/item/?map=un-must-review-policy-on-peacekeepers-who-abuse-amnesty


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 7:35 a.m.

"The purpose of the UN was to prevent ww3. It has succeeded, thus far." - ricketzz

Wrong acronym, ricktzz. It's NATO. It's the organization that Japan just signed an expanded agreement with during a summit in Brussels.


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 10:12 a.m.

"So the UN does exceptional work overall…" - Indy

Another example of "exceptional work":

The need for greater balance in the UN’s treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict recently came to light in the most unexpected of circumstances. Earlier this month, the UN general assembly convened to engage in its annual ritual of passing a series of resolutions condemning Israel. Not a single resolution critical of the Palestinian leadership, or concerning any other global issue for that matter, was adopted during the meeting. The point of interest was the candid reaction of a Spanish-speaking UN interpreter, oblivious to the fact that her microphone remained on as she addressed her colleague:

I mean, I think when you have five statements, not five, like a total of ten resolutions on Israel and Palestine, there’s gotta be something, c’est un peu trop, non? [It’s a bit much, no?] I mean I know… There’s other really bad sh*t happening [around the world], but no one says anything about the other stuff.

The interpreter’s remarks were amplified throughout the chamber and drew knowing snickers from the delegates. No doubt the embarrassed interpreter wished that the earth would swallow her up at that moment. Yet through her frank admission, the interpreter, unencumbered by rank or protocol, was perhaps the only person in the room who had nothing to be embarrassed about.

She had spoken an inconvenient truth, and the delegates in the chamber knew it. In 2006, the then UN secretary-general Kofi Annan criticised the UN human rights council for its “disproportionate focus on violations by Israel” while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur. His successor Ban Ki-Moon uttered similar sentiments the following year. Alejandro Wolff, deputy US permanent representative at the UN, accused the Council of having “a pathological obsession with Israel”.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/28/australia-is-right-to-challenge-the-uns-anti-israel-bias --edited.


Indy: Posted: May 7, 2014 7:22 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Thanks for letting me clear that up for you . . . " - Indy

You didn't "clear up" the rape of women and children by UN Blue Helmets, Indy.

Indy: Yes, the US ‘adventures’ in Iraq and Afghanistan are both filled with US crimes that are similar.

So your point is?


tech: Posted: May 8, 2014 9:20 p.m.

"So your point is?" - Indy

Already made, i.e. that the UN does NOT, as you stated, do "exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe."


ricketzz: Posted: May 8, 2014 6:20 a.m.

Japan is chumping the USA if it uses our defense agreement to secure symbolic victories. There is no uninhabited "island" in the world worth going to war over. If Japan insists on this as important we should let them twist in the wind.

NATO was a defense against Stalin, who has since died.


tech: Posted: May 8, 2014 8:44 a.m.

NATO is an alliance to protect European territorial integrity against Russian expansion into buffer states. If you studied history, you'd discover this is standard operating procedure (buffers) long before and after Stalin.


NATO to triple Baltic air patrol from next month
BY ADRIAN CROFT
BRUSSELS Tue Apr 8, 2014 3:58pm EDT

(Reuters) - NATO will triple its usual number of fighter jets patrolling over the Baltics next month to beef up its eastern European defenses due to tension with Russia over Ukraine, a NATO military official said on Tuesday.

Four NATO fighters are usually based in the Baltics but the United States, which currently has responsibility for patrolling the skies there, increased that to 10 F-15s to reassure those states following Russia's occupation of Ukraine's Crimea region.

The number of fighters assigned to the Baltic "air policing" mission is now set to increase further to 12, three times the normal complement, when the next four-month period starts in May, the NATO military official said.

The strengthening of air patrols over the Baltics is part of a plan of air, land and sea reinforcements for central and eastern European allies that NATO's top military commander, U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove, is drawing up by April 15.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/08/us-ukraine-crisis-nato-idUSBREA371WH20140408


therightstuff: Posted: May 8, 2014 8:55 a.m.

Boko Haram, Nigeria's version of the Taliban, has kidnapped hundreds of school girls and threatens to sell them as slaves. It is responsible for much of the violence in Nigeria such as church bombings, chainsaw beheadings, village raids and bus bombings. Boko Haram is responsible for as many as 5,000 murders in the past four years in Nigeria.

Stand by for the United Nations to 'pass a resolution' condemning these actions.


tech: Posted: May 8, 2014 12:33 p.m.

Do you expect the UN to duplicate their Rwanda results, TRS?


therightstuff: Posted: May 8, 2014 2:31 p.m.

Oh my...nothing could duplicate the disgrace of the UN standing by during the genocide in Rwanda. I think they passed a resolution that murdering over 1,000,000 people was a bad thing.

BTW...there's a disturbing report that the State Department refused to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. This happened under the watch of the Democrat darling for the 2016 Presidential race.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html


Indy: Posted: May 8, 2014 3:50 p.m.

Tech wrote: “So your point is?" - Indy

Already made, i.e. that the UN does NOT, as you stated, do "exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe."

Indy: And the US has no similar faults?


Indy: Posted: May 8, 2014 3:56 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Boko Haram, Nigeria's version of the Taliban, has kidnapped hundreds of school girls and threatens to sell them as slaves. It is responsible for much of the violence in Nigeria such as church bombings, chainsaw beheadings, village raids and bus bombings. Boko Haram is responsible for as many as 5,000 murders in the past four years in Nigeria.

Stand by for the United Nations to 'pass a resolution' condemning these actions.

Indy: Well, Obama is on top of this one . . .

U.S. to help Nigeria search for girls kidnapped by Boko Haram
Christi Parsons, Robyn Dixon
http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-us-nigeria-20140507-story.html

“The Obama administration will send military, intelligence and law enforcement advisors to Nigeria to help the beleaguered government find and rescue more than 270 teenage girls who were abducted by the Boko Haram terrorist group last month, the White House said Tuesday.

The team will share U.S. intelligence and provide investigative help, not military force, in the search for the students, who were kidnapped April 14 from a rural high school in Nigeria's Muslim-dominated northeast.

The deployment will mark the first public American assistance in a case that has sparked international outrage. The U.S. announcement came after the leader of Boko Haram vowed in a video to sell the girls as slaves, and after gunmen reportedly took at least eight more girls from another village overnight.

President Obama spoke out on the abductions for the first time Tuesday, calling them "heartbreaking" and "outrageous."

"You've got one of the worst regional or local terrorist organizations in Boko Haram in Nigeria," he told ABC News. Obama said the Islamist group had been "killing people ruthlessly for many years now" and that the mass abduction of the students might help "mobilize the entire international community to finally do something against this horrendous organization."


Indy: Posted: May 8, 2014 4:25 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Oh my...nothing could duplicate the disgrace of the UN standing by during the genocide in Rwanda. I think they passed a resolution that murdering over 1,000,000 people was a bad thing.

BTW...there's a disturbing report that the State Department refused to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. This happened under the watch of the Democrat darling for the 2016 Presidential race.

Indy: Indeed, Clinton later apologized but that doesn’t help the 800,000 people killed.

But I found the politics at the time were interesting witness this quote from Gingrich, then House speaker:

“"I'm opposed to this campaign for partially the purpose that point she made. We had 100,000 people killed in Syria so far. We've had lots of children killed. These are tragedies," detailed the former Speaker of the House. "We've also had tragedies around the world in Darfur, in Rwanda, in West Africa. I don't agree with the President's comment in Sweden the other day that we're the world's 911. And I think that we ought to be very careful about the projects we undertake."
http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/06/piers-morgan-live-rewind-newt-gingrich-jason-chaffetz-and-janice-hahn-oppose-u-s-in-syria-tony-blinken-on-chemical-weapon-evidence/

So it appears from Gingrich’s comment that he wouldn’t have supported US intervention in Rwanda either . . .

But perhaps you can provide us with the republicans that did . . .


tech: Posted: May 8, 2014 5:10 p.m.

“So your point is?" - Indy

Tech wrote: Already made, i.e. that the UN does NOT, as you stated, do "exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe."

Indy: And the US has no similar faults?

All you have is a tu quoque? It fails because I wasn't asserting that the USA does "exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe." as you did regarding the UN.

When it comes to logic and valid arguments, there's a difference between you and I that others can "see".

PS: Note how I'm able to attribute quotes correctly while you continue to be remedial in that area.


therightstuff: Posted: May 8, 2014 5:24 p.m.

"You've got one of the worst regional or local terrorist organizations in Boko Haram in Nigeria," he told ABC News. Obama said the Islamist group had been "killing people ruthlessly for many years now" and that the mass abduction of the students might help "mobilize the entire international community to finally do something against this horrendous organization."

Soooo...I wonder why his Secretary of State refused to classify them as a terrorist organization? What difference does it make, right Hillary?


therightstuff: Posted: May 8, 2014 6:12 p.m.

Indy: """Well, Obama is on top of this one . . ."""

Hmmm....lets see how Obama handled the last terrorist activity:

No one knows where he was the night four Americans were murdered by terrorists.

The next day he flew to Vegas for a cash junket.

Though he knew it was a terrorist attack, for the following two weeks he and his administration told the American people it was not an attack, it was a spontaneous reaction to a video.

It's this kind of callous political deception that emboldens other terrorist groups like Boko Haram. They are laughing at Obama...just like the terrorists who murdered our people in Benghazi.

You'd have to be the worst kind of shameless Democratic suck-up to continue putting your faith in such a pathological liar as Barack Obama.


tech: Posted: May 9, 2014 10:10 p.m.

There's a new sheriff in town, TRS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1jeJmeeMjs&feature=youtu.be

Finally, the House Leadership appointed an experienced and highly qualified prosecutor in Trey Gowdy as Chair of the Select Committee. It's time for answers on Benghazi.


ricketzz: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:21 a.m.

You're joking, right? This guy is a rude teabagger. He will be the Joe McCarthy of the 21st century and will scare sane people away from the Republicans forever.


therightstuff: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:38 a.m.

Wow tech....I had not seen that statement from Trey Gowdy but that was amazing. I absolutely loved the way he took the media to task for the way they shamefully buried the story of Benghazi. I especially loved his ending...

I'm not surprised the president considers this a phony scandal.
I'm not surprised secretary Clinton said 'what difference does it make'
I'm not surprised Jay Carney said Benghazi happened a long time ago.
I'm just surprised how many people bought it!

BRAVO! I pray Mr. Gowdy can withstand the toxic and hateful attacks that he'll have to withstand from Democrats and the media in his search for the truth.


tech: Posted: May 9, 2014 12:44 p.m.

Agreed, TRS.

I think Representative Gowdy is up to the task. My regret is that seniority protocol was apparently observed during the previous hearing. While successful in business, Issa didn't have the training and experience in legal theory to pursue the Benghazi investigation and oversight that was required.

The victims of terrorism and their families are entitled to know the entirety of facts. They and their fellow citizens should have confidence in their government's ability to review and correct policy errors to avoid repitition of fatal consequences.


tech: Posted: May 9, 2014 12:56 p.m.

Ricketzz, your last post is so obnoxiously rude, ignorant and inaccurate, I won't dignify it with an eviscerating rebuttal.

Read up and learn something to improve the quality of your future posts.

May It Please Trey Gowdy
The South Carolina Republican leading the Benghazi select committee was made for the job.
By David Weigel

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/trey_gowdy_leads_the_benghazi_select_committee_the_south_carolina_republican.html


ricketzz: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:39 a.m.

I follow Weigel on Twitter. Gowdy puts his best rude moments on YouTube. He is proud of them. He adds Victory at Sea soundtracks. Very macho. Gowdy is also a Tea Party people person.

If there was a "stand down" order Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty violated it. Would you feel better if you found out they screwed the pooch by attempting to rescue Stevens and Smith? That they gave away the secret location of the CIA annex safehouse and compromised a major operation? If there was a stand down order Stevens gave it. The CIA was in charge. They and Stevens agreed on what security was in place on that night. There was no terrorist attack. The mission was attacked to get the CIA to show themselves. The main battle was at the annex.


ricketzz: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:53 a.m.

Brief followup: If you keep your ears and mind open you catch seemingly unimportant stuff a lot of other people miss. From your favorite Moonie pamphlet:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/miller-rand-paul-demands-answers-gunrunning-bengha/


therightstuff: Posted: May 10, 2014 7:29 a.m.

ricketzz...how do YOU explain the video narrative? Why did Obama and his administration continue to explain it was a spontaneous reaction to a video for weeks after the fact, when they KNEW it was a terrorist attack? Also, how come no one can tell us where the President of the United States was for eight hours during this terrorist attack?

Why do Democrats like you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and go "la-la-la-la-la" when it comes to Benghazi? Why are you so opposed to the truth getting out?


tech: Posted: May 10, 2014 9:43 a.m.

None of what you just posted is news to me, ricketzz. They reinforce the requirement for full and transparent hearings run by a competent chair, i.e. Gowdy. Let *all* the facts be revealed. Weigel, who's incredibly fortunate to have you follow him on Twitter, agrees on Gowdy's competence.

The White House would do well to emulate the example of the Pentagon and be forthcoming this time.

In the interim, you'll no doubt forgive my assigning your blame America the Crusader narrative the respect it deserves.


ricketzz: Posted: May 12, 2014 7:08 a.m.

What makes the strikes on 11-12 September 2012 Benghazi Libya terrorism? Where were the civilians? Where were the TV cameras? If you strategically attack a military operation it is not terrorism. Unless anything you don't like is called "terrorism" which makes us the same as Nazi Germany and Kiev.


tech: Posted: May 12, 2014 5:07 p.m.

You haven't established that the Libyan Embassy and related properties were military operations and/or targets, ricketzz.

Terrorism
In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., military personnel in peacetime or civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticized for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organizations or individuals.


ricketzz: Posted: May 13, 2014 7:36 a.m.

The Libyan Embassy is in Tripoli.

When you can drop indirect fire on target by instinct you are an active combatant. It's no secret the CIA was repurposing weapons from Libyan rebels to Syrian rebels ("Al Qaeda" by the broad definition everybody is fond of using). Were they doing it in the seaport closest to Turkey for land shipment across a 3rd party's territory? If Erdogan [sic] found out he'd probably kick us out of Turkey, hence the lack of candor. There was a military objective in the attacks. I think the rented compound was torched to get the CIA to reveal its location. CIA people were followed back to the annex and the place was then attacked by mortar, etc.

Whatever was going on, it was over and everyone was in the air by the afternoon of the 12th.


Indy: Posted: May 13, 2014 1:25 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Wow tech....I had not seen that statement from Trey Gowdy but that was amazing. I absolutely loved the way he took the media to task for the way they shamefully buried the story of Benghazi. I especially loved his ending...

I'm not surprised the president considers this a phony scandal.
I'm not surprised secretary Clinton said 'what difference does it make'
I'm not surprised Jay Carney said Benghazi happened a long time ago.
I'm just surprised how many people bought it!

BRAVO! I pray Mr. Gowdy can withstand the toxic and hateful attacks that he'll have to withstand from Democrats and the media in his search for the truth.

Indy: For anyone wanting a full complete account of the incident in Libya: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)

You can listen to all the Fox presented ‘innuendo and speculation’ by this conservative poster . . . but it doesn’t change the reality that took place.


Indy: Posted: May 13, 2014 1:33 p.m.

Tech wrote: “So your point is?" - Indy

Tech wrote: Already made, i.e. that the UN does NOT, as you stated, do "exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe."

Indy: And the US has no similar faults?

All you have is a tu quoque? It fails because I wasn't asserting that the USA does "exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe." as you did regarding the UN.

Indy: Yes, I see . . . you constantly promote US actions but leave off the ‘because I wasn't asserting that the USA does "exceptional work in all areas surrounding the globe."’

Your naiveté even surprises me sometimes . . . but indeed ‘word play’ is all you’ve really got . . .

But the vast majority of Americans believe in the UN . . . believe in their mission to try to unite nations . . . versus the US strategy of maintaining the most ‘powerful military’ in the world and just daring anyone to disagree with us. . . yeah, that’s no foundation for creating global consensus.

And using the approximate amount of $700,000,000,000.00 on YEARLY defense spending that addresses none of the economic factors creating the global unrest we see is goes beyond disgraceful into pure negligence.

Tech wrote: When it comes to logic and valid arguments, there's a difference between you and I that others can "see". PS: Note how I'm able to attribute quotes correctly while you continue to be remedial in that area.

Indy: This is why I keep requesting that you disclose your educational background so I can better help you with topical issues you appear to be unfamiliar with and make worse by using a strategy that ignores the basics of the issues under discussion.

Please, don’t be embarrassed . . . just come to grips with your deficiencies and then people like me can help you!


tech: Posted: May 14, 2014 7:14 a.m.

"Indy: Yes, I see . . . you constantly promote US actions" - Indy

An unsupported assertion and a continuation of tu quoque that would be irrelevant if this were actually the case.


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:44 p.m.

Tech wrote: “Indy: Yes, I see . . . you constantly promote US actions" - Indy

An unsupported assertion and a continuation of tu quoque that would be irrelevant if this were actually the case.

Indy: LOL


tech: Posted: May 19, 2014 8:03 p.m.

No doubt embarrassed laughter.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...