More Cut'n run news from the Democrats

[Carol&Marc 0]

As I said yesterday, I don't see you involved in a street march against African genocide. That says to me that your "moral high horse" extends to Iraq (and Iraqis) ONLY as far as it justifies your clearly partisan loyalties.

So you think the U.S. should get involved with African genocide?(Iraqi genocide must be different) Daniel ask the same kind of question. Where is the Critisism of countries,that let these things also happen? As the obsessed with Bush, brilliant minds here, seem to forget about the leaders of other countries that just like to SIT BACK and WATCH! Where is E.T.'s and your beloved U.N. on African genocide? Okay let's jump in and save these poor souls in africa (nobody else is) I'm all for it! As soon as some of our guys die there or it gets a little rough the same will happen thats happening now ******RUN****** sorry folks but were outta here!

[kaydee457 13]

As I said yesterday, I don't see you involved in a street march against African genocide. That says to me that your "moral high horse" extends to Iraq (and Iraqis) ONLY as far as it justifies your clearly partisan loyalties.

So you think the U.S. should get involved with African genocide?(Iraqi genocide must be different) Daniel ask the same kind of question. Where is the Critisism of countries,that let these things also happen? As the obsessed with Bush, brilliant minds here, seem to forget about the leaders of other countries that just like to SIT BACK and WATCH! Where is E.T.'s and your beloved U.N. on African genocide? Okay let's jump in and save these poor souls in africa (nobody else is) I'm all for it! As soon as some of our guys die there or it gets a little rough the same will happen thats happening now ******RUN****** sorry folks but were outta here!

[Carol&Marc 0]

As I said yesterday, I don't see you involved in a street march against African genocide. That says to me that your "moral high horse" extends to Iraq (and Iraqis) ONLY as far as it justifies your clearly partisan loyalties.

So you think the U.S. should get involved with African genocide?(Iraqi genocide must be different) Daniel ask the same kind of question. Where is the Critisism of countries,that let these things also happen? As the obsessed with Bush, brilliant minds here, seem to forget about the leaders of other countries that just like to SIT BACK and WATCH! Where is E.T.'s and your beloved U.N. on African genocide? Okay let's jump in and save these poor souls in africa (nobody else is) I'm all for it! As soon as some of our guys die there or it gets a little rough the same will happen thats happening now ******RUN****** sorry folks but were outta here!

Genocide must be legal,until the U.N. says it's illegal? or is it if the war is illegal the genocide is legal? I can see where being a liberal can be very draining.

[GaryC 7]

Apparently the Sudan government doesn't trust the UN any more than the libs trust our government. Bush tried to get the UN to go to Darfur but the Sudan said no.

Beshir thanks China for blocking UN troops

Sudanese President says UN troop deployment in Darfur would create Iraq-style debacle.

By Verna Yu – BEIJING

Deploying UN peacekeepers in Sudan's troubled Darfur region would lead to a debacle similar to Iraq, Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir said Friday as he thanked China for helping block a US-led push for troops.

"If UN troops are accepted, the impact will be like having the coalition forces in Iraq... and Iraq is completely destroyed," he told a press briefing through a translator ahead of a summit of Chinese and African leaders here.

"If coalition forces enter (Darfur), we can imagine what will happen, so our final assessment is that it's better to refuse than accept.

"We don't want a stand-off with the international community but we don't want to be used by some countries either."

Beshir thanked China for its "understanding" and support at the UN Security Council in insisting that Sudan's consent must be sought before deploying peacekeeping troops into the war-torn western region of Darfur.

"We do appreciate the support that China has given Sudan in the UN Security Council," said Beshir, who is in Beijing for a China-Africa summit.

Although the UN Security Council adopted a resolution in July mandating the deployment of some 20,000 peacekeepers to replace an under-funded African Union force in Darfur, Beshir's government has opposed the UN troops.

China has insisted it supports sending in the UN peacekeepers -- but only with the consent of the Sudanese government.

At least 200,000 people have died as a result of fighting, famine and disease in Darfur and 2.5 million others have been displaced since rebellion against the Khartoum government broke out in early 2003.

Beshir's government and its allied Arab Janjaweed militia have been accused of adopting a scorched-earth policy against Darfur's mostly black African population, with the United States describing their actions as genocide.

But Beshir maintained Friday that those numbers were grossly exaggerated, saying only 10,000 people had died and that accusations of ethnic cleansing and rape were "false."

Beshir, who met with Chinese President Hu Jintao on Thursday, thanked China for helping oppose attempts by other countries to "depict Sudan in a very negative way" and highlighted the two nations' close ties.

"This relationship is one of friendly economic and trade cooperation... China doesn't interfere with the internal affairs of other nations," Beshir said.

China's investment in Sudan tops six billion dollars, of which four billion comes from state-owned China National Petroleum Corp's investment in the African nation's oil industry, according to the Sudanese embassy in Beijing.

In the lead-up to the African summit, China made no apologies for its close ties with Beshir and another African leader regarded as a pariah in the West, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

"Our principle when handling our relations with other countries is to never try to impose our social system, development mode, values and ideology upon other countries," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said.

Beshir offered some conciliatory remarks on Friday to the United States, following US President George W. Bush's policy review this week after failing to obtain Sudan's compliance for the entry of the 20,000 UN troops.

"The US government has appointed an envoy for Sudan and there's now an attempt... to avoid any complications in the security situation in Darfur," he said.

"We hope that, through dialogue between the two parts, we'll be in a position to arrive at the best way of alleviating sufferings in Darfur."

Beshir is one of over 40 African leaders visiting Beijing for a three-day China-African forum starting Friday aimed at strengthening political and economic relations between the two regions.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=18119

Probably because the UN peace-keepers look at their mission as their own sex playground.

SA's sex-mad troops shock

Karyn Maughan

November 04 2006 at 10:43AM

South Africa's randy soldiers on foreign missions appear more interested in getting sexual thrills than in peacekeeping.

According to the SA National Defence Force's own investigations, 36 military personnel have allegedly been involved in sexual misconduct in the DRC and Burundi.

The United Nations, under whose auspices the peacekeeping missions are run, is said to be shocked at the conduct of the South Africans troops.

One high-ranking South African peacekeeper stationed in the DRC is to face court-martial this month for allegedly sexually abusing his teenage male interpreter. Lieutenant-Colonel Koos van Breda, 45, was the officer commanding 2 SA Infantry Battalion when the incident took place in September 2003.

In addition to the rape and murder charges faced by SA Air Force Flight Sergeant Flippie Venter, who last month was sentenced to an effective 10 years in jail for fatally shooting his two young children and nearly killing his wife, 35 other SANDF members stationed in the DRC and Burundi are being prosecuted for sexual misconduct.

And military correspondence reveals that these cases represent only a fraction of the sexual offences committed by SANDF officers.

"Many instances of sexual misconduct go unreported," a member of the SANDF's Operational Legal Support said in response to questions about the number of sexual assault cases against SA peacekeepers.

The list of sexual offence cases being processed by military prosecutors includes the following:

Four paternity claims against four different peacekeepers stationed in Burundi - one of whom is accused of fathering two children by two different women;

A rifleman accused of sexually assaulting and beating up two Kindu women in the DRC. He is one of four soldiers currently facing sexual assault charges;

Five SANDF cargo handlers who were "found in a UN vehicle with two half-naked females" in Goma, DRC;

A corporal who allegedly made illegal use of a UN vehicle to drive a woman around, broke his curfew and collided with a pole;

Two SANDF members - a staff sergeant and a lance corporal - separately accused of failing to pay local sex workers after making use of their services;

A corporal accused of having sex with a local sex worker in a UN vehicle, a sergeant who "touched the private parts of a fellow female officer", and a corporal who allegedly sexually harassed three female contingent members;

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_Ne...93006176C768488

Thats what your UN has done ET and Fishy. You really want that?

Edited November 16, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Carol&Marc 0]

Oh how the U.N. shines through the dark murkiness to make our lives truly beautiful! Thank you Kofi

Edited November 16, 2006 by Carol&Marc

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thats what your UN has done ET and Fishy. You really want that?

Only if you admit (which you won't) that those incidents are about as representative of the UN as the Abu Ghraib abuses, this and this are representative of the actions of US troops.

Edited November 16, 2006 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said yesterday, I don't see you involved in a street march against African genocide. That says to me that your "moral high horse" extends to Iraq (and Iraqis) ONLY as far as it justifies your clearly partisan loyalties.

So you think the U.S. should get involved with African genocide?(Iraqi genocide must be different) Daniel ask the same kind of question. Where is the Critisism of countries,that let these things also happen? As the obsessed with Bush, brilliant minds here, seem to forget about the leaders of other countries that just like to SIT BACK and WATCH! Where is E.T.'s and your beloved U.N. on African genocide? Okay let's jump in and save these poor souls in africa (nobody else is) I'm all for it! As soon as some of our guys die there or it gets a little rough the same will happen thats happening now ******RUN****** sorry folks but were outta here!

Here's what I said:

That the moral high ground that you are rubbing in the face of people who oppose this war is based entirely on your partisan loyalties, and has little of anything to do with genuine humanitarian sentiment. Speaking of which, while you're asking for the criticism of those countries I might well ask "where is yours?". In fact, you didn't even bring up Darfur... did you?

Do I think that the US should "get involved" (I assume you mean militarily)? The short answer is no. There is a reason we have an international community to prevent the need unilateral military intervention by a single member state - unless that state is "defending itself". Because unilateralism for one thing creates the impression of imperialism. The key word here is "Multilateralism".

The UN isn't perfect far from it and I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. Surely as a member of the international community, why isn't the US doing more to help "reform" the United Nations. Again if membership of the body is so harmful and damaging to our interests why do we not withdraw from it?

Come on... connect the dots...

Edited November 17, 2006 by erekose

[Carol&Marc 0]

As I said yesterday, I don't see you involved in a street march against African genocide. That says to me that your "moral high horse" extends to Iraq (and Iraqis) ONLY as far as it justifies your clearly partisan loyalties.

So you think the U.S. should get involved with African genocide?(Iraqi genocide must be different) Daniel ask the same kind of question. Where is the Critisism of countries,that let these things also happen? As the obsessed with Bush, brilliant minds here, seem to forget about the leaders of other countries that just like to SIT BACK and WATCH! Where is E.T.'s and your beloved U.N. on African genocide? Okay let's jump in and save these poor souls in africa (nobody else is) I'm all for it! As soon as some of our guys die there or it gets a little rough the same will happen thats happening now ******RUN****** sorry folks but were outta here!

Here's what I said:

That the moral high ground that you are rubbing in the face of people who oppose this war is based entirely on your partisan loyalties, and has little of anything to do with genuine humanitarian sentiment. Speaking of which, while you're asking for the criticism of those countries I might well ask "where is yours?". In fact, you didn't even bring up Darfur... did you?

Do I think that the US should "get involved" (I assume you mean militarily)? The short answer is no. There is a reason we have an international community to prevent the need unilateral military intervention by a single member state - unless that state is "defending itself". Because unilateralism for one thing creates the impression of imperialism. The key word here is "Multilateralism".

The UN isn't perfect far from it and I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. Surely as a member of the international community, why isn't the US doing more to help "reform" the United Nations. Again if membership of the body is so harmful and damaging to our interests why do we not withdraw from it?

Come on... connect the dots...

Sorry that I dont answr the questions how you would like,but at least I am trying.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When was the last time any of YOU got anything in your life that was worth while with out a fight.

November 1989. Me. Personally. Not exactly w/o a fight but certainly w/o bloodshed and, more importantly, without a foreign power illegally invading my country causing tens of thousands of needless deaths. And guess what? That liberation is actually working. Wanna know why? Because it came from within - i.e. the people were ready for it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said yesterday, I don't see you involved in a street march against African genocide. That says to me that your "moral high horse" extends to Iraq (and Iraqis) ONLY as far as it justifies your clearly partisan loyalties.

So you think the U.S. should get involved with African genocide?(Iraqi genocide must be different) Daniel ask the same kind of question. Where is the Critisism of countries,that let these things also happen? As the obsessed with Bush, brilliant minds here, seem to forget about the leaders of other countries that just like to SIT BACK and WATCH! Where is E.T.'s and your beloved U.N. on African genocide? Okay let's jump in and save these poor souls in africa (nobody else is) I'm all for it! As soon as some of our guys die there or it gets a little rough the same will happen thats happening now ******RUN****** sorry folks but were outta here!

Here's what I said:

That the moral high ground that you are rubbing in the face of people who oppose this war is based entirely on your partisan loyalties, and has little of anything to do with genuine humanitarian sentiment. Speaking of which, while you're asking for the criticism of those countries I might well ask "where is yours?". In fact, you didn't even bring up Darfur... did you?

Do I think that the US should "get involved" (I assume you mean militarily)? The short answer is no. There is a reason we have an international community to prevent the need unilateral military intervention by a single member state - unless that state is "defending itself". Because unilateralism for one thing creates the impression of imperialism. The key word here is "Multilateralism".

The UN isn't perfect far from it and I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. Surely as a member of the international community, why isn't the US doing more to help "reform" the United Nations. Again if membership of the body is so harmful and damaging to our interests why do we not withdraw from it?

Come on... connect the dots...

Sorry that I dont answr the questions how you would like,but at least I am trying.

I didn't ask any questions in that first post. You misinterpreted what I wrote, once again. So I clarified for you.

[Heracles 417]

Did anyone hear the genius Pelosi's latest statement?

"Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with us"

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

When was the last time any of YOU got anything in your life that was worth while with out a fight.

November 1989. Me. Personally. Not exactly w/o a fight but certainly w/o bloodshed and, more importantly, without a foreign power illegally invading my country causing tens of thousands of needless deaths. And guess what? That liberation is actually working. Wanna know why? Because it came from within - i.e. the people were ready for it.

i suppose those russians were just visiting on a temporary visa?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Did anyone hear the genius Pelosi's latest statement?

"Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with us"

Now the last time I heard that it was being sung as a hymn in church - damn liberals!

[Heracles 417]

You can't win a war like this when the words 'Human Rights' are so prevalent today. The US military could, theoretically, crush most nations out there. The reason they can't in reality is because, like a lot of the world, they are restrained by moral values that are against harming innocent people, thus they can't fight a guerilla war (where the enemy dress like the rest of the population and are hard to identify). Pull out now.

Well exactly. Personally if I was in charge I would teach the terrorists consequences for their actions. If they snipe / kill an Iraqi civilian or US soldier, their whole neighborhood gets bombed. If they are from another nation as most of these terrorists are, once again their town gets bombed. This way the animals fighting without any rules or regard for human life will learn to understand the consequences of their actions..

BUT we know most people don't have the b#### to take on the terrorists on their level. Therefore they win, in a war where the US is scrutinized if they don't sneeze right yet the same people turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the terrorists towards other people.. I would probably agree, a pull out is really the only option as we are wasting our time, money and lives...

Edited November 17, 2006 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Personally if I was in charge I would teach the terrorists consequences for their actions. If they snipe / kill an Iraqi civilian or US soldier, their whole neighborhood gets bombed. If they are from another nation as most of these terrorists are, once again their town gets bombed. This way the animals fighting without any rules or regard for human life will learn to understand the consequences of their actions..

BUT we know most people don't have the b#### to take on the terrorists on their level. Therefore they win, in a war where the US is scrutinized if they don't sneeze right yet the same people turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the terrorists towards other people..

The French learned that lesson in WW2. Genius idea...

I would probably agree, a pull out is really the only option as we are wasting our time, money and lives...

But then again... are you suggesting we (gasp!) "cut and run?"