[Newsbot]

Title: UN classifies rape a 'war tactic'
Category: World
Posted By: snookums
Date: 2008-06-19 19:36:18

[sandorski]

I think it is just recognizing that it is used as such. It seems oddly worded though, but the intent seems to be to limit it as much as possible.

[ridenrain]

What a bunch of bastards, This is all because rape is common in Africa, even among African "peace keeping" groups, and the UN hasn't a hope in hell of stopping it. Just like they dickered around with the definition and ramification of the word "genocide", their glossing over the definition of the word "rape" now.
This is what you get when you give the thugs and despots of these African dictatorships the same voice as legitimate democratic countries.

[CanAm1]

ridenrain wrote:

What a bunch of bastards, This is all because rape is common in Africa, even among African "peace keeping" groups, and the UN hasn't a hope in hell of stopping it. Just like they dickered around with the definition and ramification of the word "genocide", their glossing over the definition of the word "rape" now.
This is what you get when you give the thugs and despots of these African dictatorships the same voice as legitimate democratic countries.

It would seem that this is a way of the UN to avoid doing anything tangible to make it's forces stop the practise. It would make the UN cringe if Canada, Briton, Australia, and the US all left the UN. The US especially. These countries at least pay their dues to keep this nonsense going. If it wasn't for the US the UN would be bankrupt, as it is they rely on the US to fund just about everything anyway. I am not positive but is Canada current on it's dues?

I would love to find a page that tells me how much each member country pays and how far behind they are on their dues. I think the UN needs to be dissolved, it's gutless, useless and corrupt.

[Brenda]

That are strong words about the US and the UN, and I don't really think I agree... I think the UN would not be what it is now if ANY of the countries stepped out. They all pay their dues, and the US is not holier than any other...

[CanAm1]

That is not true Brenda most of the member countries pay next to nothing and are very far behind. The US pays the lions share of the incoming funds to the UN. Their leadership is terribly corrupt. The oil for food scandal went all the way to the top. They haven't had a successful mission in a long time. The US is not holier, they just are relied upon to give money all the time. The facts will bear this out.

[Brenda]

CanAm1 wrote:

That is not true Brenda most of the member countries pay next to nothing and are very far behind. The US pays the lions share of the incoming funds to the UN. Their leadership is terribly corrupt. The oil for food scandal went all the way to the top. They haven't had a successful mission in a long time. The US is not holier, they just are relied upon to give money all the time. The facts will bear this out.

maybe you should come with a link that state your facts...

[CanAm1]

lily wrote:

Last time I heard, the US was way behind on its dues.

Sorry...I stand corrected. You and Brenda are correct. However the US supplies 30% of the total UN operating budget. The reason they are behind is because of things the UN are doing that do not appear to be in the US's interests. These votes in the Senate and Congress are passed in a bi partisan vote to not fund or to delay until the UN gets in line with US thinking. Seems a bit heavy handed and like I will take my football home if you don't play my way. However the US is usually objecting to how the money is being divvied up and where it's going. There is a lot of corruption in the UN and the leadership of it is getting rich off of US, Canadian and other contributors funds. There is however a huge amount of the membership within the UN that has never paid a dime into the funds.
And anytime there is a conflict or a famine or emergency anywhere who is called upon first, THE US.
They are usually the first on scene anywhere there is a disaster in the world and the huge outpouring of money, food and supplies from the American people to the needy of the world cannot be matched by anyone. Canada too is very generous for it's population base and economic size. But the US is king when it comes to saving the world with it's help and money.
You may not like them much but they sure are there when needed. It also makes me proud to say I am Canadian when I know that on the same hand that Canada will also do all it can. Oh and Brenda and Lilly I am not aiming the you may not like them much comment at you. Just all the US bashers here on this site.

[Brenda]

If you are part of an allience, you can't say: "hey, I am not gonna pay, because that is not in my own interest." If you want that, get the hell out and do it all on your own...

Ya gotta love the US's arrogance

[CanAm1]

I do love the US's arrogance, I wish Canada had more of it. I agree with you about getting out of it. But would you stay in an alliance with someone you knew that was corrupt and stealing from your joint funds or giving funds to things that are going to funnel it back to their personal pocket. I wouldn't. I don't think any rational person would either.

[Brenda]

Why do you think I left the EU?

[naelch]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/index.htm

The US is by far the biggest contributor to the UN financing (approx. one quarter). Note that it is not obligatory to fund the UN, so the countries who participate in this "nonsense", including the US, do it for a purpose. If leaving the UN was an option for the U.S, they should have done it 8 years ago. Note also from some charts that the US have the biggest debt towards the UN: 50%.

Nobody obliges nobody else to stay in the U.N.

As for U.N inability to solve intra-national problems (like human rights related ones), this comes from the nature of the UN as an international "cooperation" organization and not as a World government, with the right to interfere in "National" matters. Sovereignty is an excuse used by all despot Countries, but is also the cornerstone of the democracy. Invalidating it would legitimate and legalize again "moral imperialism", as all imperialisms are moral and of course for a Good Cause(tm).

The only solution for the Humanitarian problems are NGOs and Free Flow of Information. If the UN could transform to a platform of denunciation (with media proofs), that would put much more pressure on a lot of govs and organizations with a minimal investment.

[Streaker]

So the UN denouncing rape was a bad thing?!?

[naelch]

Streaker wrote:

So the UN denouncing rape was a bad thing?!?

Is this question for me?

If yes, no of course.
If no, no of course.

[Streaker]

naelch wrote:

Streaker wrote:

So the UN denouncing rape was a bad thing?!?

Is this question for me?

If yes, no of course.
If no, no of course.

Not for you in particular.

Just thought that all the bitching about the UN on this thread was a diversion from the issue at hand, namely that rape is widespread in time of war.