Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The U.N. Sent 3 Women To The U.S. To Assess Gender Equality. They Were Horrified

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    I do not mean about the field level organization. I mean the organization to get these people there in the first place.
    That's just it. Just because the UN said go doesn't mean people will go. It takes member countries to organize the go. If there are no qualified takers, ie the Congo, then there would be no mission.

    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    A UN mandate makes these adventures politically acceptable, at least in developing countries.
    We didn't need one for Kosovo, East Timor, and Iraq. The Soviets didn't need one for Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan. China didn't need one for Vietnam. And India didn't need one for Pakistan (3 times).

    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    Colonel, when you are operating under a UN umbrella, you are the UN. You may be a Canadian or Indian or whatever, but the people you help see you as a blue helmet or a UN aid worker. Regardless of your feelings regarding the UN top leadership or even their overpriced bureaucrats or even the motivations of the member countries, people get the help they need because the UN is in a position to marshal these resources, even if they fail to do so sometimes (Rwanda).
    The ground realities are quite different. If Nigerian troops are in front of you, do as you please. They won't leave the barracks. Just don't go into their barracks. The locals learn which troops will fight and which troops won't.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Let's be clear about this. India is not interested in bringing peace to the world. She's trying to score brownie points to get a P seat in the UNSC. How many Indian PMs or Ministers are directly involved in peace negotiations in any UN op.
    I am not questioning that one bit. I know very well what India's motivations are.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Organizational umbrella? That's a laugh. If New York couldn't get Indian troops, they want an Indian General precisely because he's bringing in the organizational capabilities. Why else would Nigerian troops accept outside command in their own backyard. Canada certainly would not have tolerated UN command during the Oka Crisis.
    I do not mean about the field level organization. I mean the organization to get these people there in the first place.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And this gets to me. Nigeria could have ended the Rwandan Genocide all by herself. She waited for the UNSC go that never came. In all the other regions, the regional power went in with or without UN ok and they couldn't care less. India certainly didn't go to the UN for Sri Lanka.
    How would countries justify involvement in regional or world matters to their internal audience without a UN Mandate? Sure, India dabbled in IPKF, what happened after that? Rajiv Gandhi suffered both politically and personally from that decision.

    A UN mandate makes these adventures politically acceptable, at least in developing countries.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Our troops did wonders and punched above their weight. The reason why the UN did so well is because of us, not because of the organization. Most of whom would rather spend nights in $1000 hotels doing research that could have been done over an internet line instead of learning the ground realities.
    Colonel, when you are operating under a UN umbrella, you are the UN. You may be a Canadian or Indian or whatever, but the people you help see you as a blue helmet or a UN aid worker. Regardless of your feelings regarding the UN top leadership or even their overpriced bureaucrats or even the motivations of the member countries, people get the help they need because the UN is in a position to marshal these resources, even if they fail to do so sometimes (Rwanda).

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    Sure, but many of these nations would not be there if not for the organizational umbrella and more importantly, legitimacy that the UN provides. India in particular has been very clear and vocal about that.
    Let's be clear about this. India is not interested in bringing peace to the world. She's trying to score brownie points to get a P seat in the UNSC. How many Indian PMs or Ministers are directly involved in peace negotiations in any UN op.

    I didn't see my PM in Yugoslavia nor Rwanda negotiating peace either.

    Organizational umbrella? That's a laugh. If New York couldn't get Indian troops, they want an Indian General precisely because he's bringing in the organizational capabilities. Why else would Nigerian troops accept outside command in their own backyard. Canada certainly would not have tolerated UN command during the Oka Crisis.

    And this gets to me. Nigeria could have ended the Rwandan Genocide all by herself. She waited for the UNSC go that never came. In all the other regions, the regional power went in with or without UN ok and they couldn't care less. India certainly didn't go to the UN for Sri Lanka.

    Our troops did wonders and punched above their weight. The reason why the UN did so well is because of us, not because of the organization. Most of whom would rather spend nights in $1000 hotels doing research that could have been done over an internet line instead of learning the ground realities.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Because of the quality of contributing nations, not because of the UN. I rather have an Indian or a Pakistani Company than a Nigerian division. The UN takes whomever and whatever. If you read of UN success, you should read it's Indian or Pakistani or Canadian or British or French ...

    And even then, we have disasters. His fault or not, Dallaire comes to mind.
    Sure, but many of these nations would not be there if not for the organizational umbrella and more importantly, legitimacy that the UN provides. India in particular has been very clear and vocal about that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    Colonel,
    Having said all of that, you of all would know the good the blue helmets achieved in Africa and elsewhere. I understand you are thoroughly disillusioned, but that record cannot be done away with
    Because of the quality of contributing nations, not because of the UN. I rather have an Indian or a Pakistani Company than a Nigerian division. The UN takes whomever and whatever. If you read of UN success, you should read it's Indian or Pakistani or Canadian or British or French ...

    And even then, we have disasters. His fault or not, Dallaire comes to mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Flows from the top. I don't know if it started with Kofi Annan but he sure exploit it to the freaking hilt. He was travelling all over the world from capital to capital "asking" for troops for Rwanda. In the meantime, three Nigerian regiments were waiting for the UNSC go. As corrupt as the Nigerians were, that was more than enough combat power to stop the killing and get back to the business of robbing. In other words, Annan was going on a world tour instead of staying in New York working the UNSC for that go. On the UN's dollar, meaning our dollars.

    And you do recall when Indian and Canadian miltiary officers were being shelled by the Israelis in Lebanon? Annan was nowhere to be found until Monday morning after our people were killed. It was a Canadian General at the UN doing the phone calls Tel Avi to try to get the shelling stopped. That was Annan's job. Instead, he showed up Monday morning all mad before the camera, not because our people were killed but his weekend was cut short.

    The fuck rather vacation on the UN's dime than to do his fucking job. So, yeah, I can see why these witch hunters wannabes want to do this study. For fuck sakes, everything they wrote I can look up on the internet and not spend one friggin dime.

    I have no use for the UN. If we want to go in, then give us the Chapter 7 and we'll go in under our own Colours, not the UN blue.
    Ah, the intense indignation of "apparently deliberate targeting" of an UN post.

    Colonel,
    Having said all of that, you of all would know the good the blue helmets achieved in Africa and elsewhere. I understand you are thoroughly disillusioned, but that record cannot be done away with

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    Life in the UN must be smooooth...
    Flows from the top. I don't know if it started with Kofi Annan but he sure exploit it to the freaking hilt. He was travelling all over the world from capital to capital "asking" for troops for Rwanda. In the meantime, three Nigerian regiments were waiting for the UNSC go. As corrupt as the Nigerians were, that was more than enough combat power to stop the killing and get back to the business of robbing. In other words, Annan was going on a world tour instead of staying in New York working the UNSC for that go. On the UN's dollar, meaning our dollars.

    And you do recall when Indian and Canadian miltiary officers were being shelled by the Israelis in Lebanon? Annan was nowhere to be found until Monday morning after our people were killed. It was a Canadian General at the UN doing the phone calls Tel Avi to try to get the shelling stopped. That was Annan's job. Instead, he showed up Monday morning all mad before the camera, not because our people were killed but his weekend was cut short.

    The fuck rather vacation on the UN's dime than to do his fucking job. So, yeah, I can see why these witch hunters wannabes want to do this study. For fuck sakes, everything they wrote I can look up on the internet and not spend one friggin dime.

    I have no use for the UN. If we want to go in, then give us the Chapter 7 and we'll go in under our own Colours, not the UN blue.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 01 Sep 16,, 14:49.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    A couple of posts were removed. Please resume normal posting.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    How many $1000 per day hotels are there in Tunisia and Morocco as compared to the US?
    That's exactly right.
    I believe the following reasoning is better - where in Tunisia or Morocco would they get access as unfettered as they would in the United States? If the did go there, as opposed to internet ("intern"-et) research, they would probably have written more about it.

    BTW, $1000 a night hotels? I have stayed in some pretty posh places courtesy my company but even those topped out in the mid to upper hundreds. Even the Waldorf Astoria in NYC (one of the most overpriced destinations of all IMO) is around 700-800. Yes, there are the Trump Towers and Ritz Carltons, but why would UN bureaucrats stay there or at other places only frequented by celebrities or millionaires? The Hiltons, Mariotts, Westins, Hyatts are perfectly acceptable places to stay for most business executives.

    Life in the UN must be smooooth...

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    IWhile countries such as Tunisia and Moroccos have brief entries, the US has a long entry.
    How many $1000 per day hotels are there in Tunisia and Morocco as compared to the US?

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    It is instructive to visit the UNHRC website and go through the reports. While countries such as Tunisia and Moroccos have brief entries, the US has a long entry. This leads me to believe that the US is the only place where they were allowed to do proper data gathering is the US. Also, their assessment seems to be what the law says and less of what ground reality is. Abortion is of course a touchy issues, and even as someone on the "freedom" side of the debate, that by itself does not make the US a hellhope, especially compared to the countries on the list. If the assessment of the US is based on expectations from a high income, Western country, then it is a virulently racists one, as if women in other countries deserve less.

    The US has a lot of problems for women, but she is answerable to the women citizens for that, not to some hypocritical UN rights body.

    Compared to what many here say, I still believe that the UN (especially the Blue Helmets) is a great force of good in the world, and its sad to see all that good work undermined by this sort of stupidity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Firestorm
    replied
    Ah, the UNHRC.

    Saudi Arabia, where bloggers are whipped and people executed for demanding free elections and practicing "witchcraft", is not only a full member of the UNHRC but also heads an important panel which appoints experts who report human rights violations around the world.

    Who the hell is going to take these jokers seriously? They are far worse than the other equally useless departments of the UN.

    Leave a comment:


  • YellowFever
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    Because they are self-realized women who don't need hubbies to buy them shoes?
    You assume they're married??

    Look at their brief bios.

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women...s/Members.aspx

    Feminazis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    I wonder how many pairs of shoes they bought while they were here.
    Because they are self-realized women who don't need hubbies to buy them shoes?

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	polar bear face palm.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	17.6 KB
ID:	1469252

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X