Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How is it obvious that there is "enough food"? It is only obvious that the soldiers have some food.

eta: My snarkiness is undercut by club's post two minutes earlier, alas.


Africa is a strange and mysterious place whether normal market forces do not work. UN soldiers have the power there not only to sleep ("sleep") with prostitutes, but also to make sure that everyone else who is hungry gets food but cannot share that food with the prostitutes.

Here's the article again. Nothing in it suggests that there's enough food to go around, but club has used the force of will to dispel that problem so that he won't have to dip into his pocket to pay for a solution.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How could you say that if it's just the tip of the iceberg?

How could you say it's just the tip of the iceberg if it's not?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No matter who "owns" the tax dollars, you want to take them from the NEA to give them to poor African prostitutes, but not from your pocket.



And yet you're not willing to have the UN spend more on famine relief -- at least not unless someone else pays for it but you don't have to -- and you are only using this situation to bash the UN, which is the only institution -- so far as I know -- actually there doing something to help these people.

'nuff said.

Ty, which country provides massive amounts of funding for these UN programs?

As for the taxes, even if you taxed US citizens at a 75% rate of their incomes, that would not generate enough revenue to feed everyone on earth. There are too many people, and some of them live in places where you cannot grow food. Moreover, sky-high tax rates would kill our economy and the revenues would fall not increase because of the damaging effect this would have on the economy.

Moreover, moreover the sad reality is that food aid won't solve the problem and will actually make the underlying problems worse as it will lead to even more people being born in a place where they don't have the resources to support these even more people.

Moreover, moreover, moreover give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can eat for life. Food aid is the wrong approach to solve what ills Africa.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How could you say it's just the tip of the iceberg if it's not?

I'm not saying it is or isn't. I just posed the question of whether it is or alternatively is just sloppy controls.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Africa is a strange and mysterious place whether normal market forces do not work. UN soldiers have the power there not only to sleep ("sleep") with prostitutes, but also to make sure that everyone else who is hungry gets food but cannot share that food with the prostitutes.

Here's the article again. Nothing in it suggests that there's enough food to go around, but club has used the force of will to dispel that problem so that he won't have to dip into his pocket to pay for a solution.

I hate to say this Ty, but it's starting to sound like you are ... not quite defending, but not fully comfortable condemning UN soldiers who abuse their power by withholding food from starving people unless they get sex in return.

The conduct in question is reprehensible.

It will not get the press that the US conduct at Abu Ghraib got. That is not because of the "liberal media" (probably the dumbest phrase the right wing has ever cooked up). It is for three very simple reasons:

1. There are no photographs or videotapes.

2. The UN operation in question in general attracts perhaps 1% of the public attention that the occupation of Iraq does, for very obvious reasons.

3. The actions of the UN soldiers in seeking sex from certain women appears like the opportunistic actions of individuals, whereas the conduct of US soldiers at Abu Ghraib has indicia of being pursuant to policies and orders (unless, of course, we believe that the fact that prisoners were tortured at the one unit of the one prison where the most "high-intelligence value" prisoners were sent is just a big coinky-dink).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How could you say that if it's just the tip of the iceberg?

Icebergs melt.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I hate to say this Ty, but it's starting to sound like you are ... not quite defending, but not fully comfortable condemning UN soldiers who abuse their power by withholding food from starving people unless they get sex in return.

And if I was the right-wing version of Ty, I would say that it's all one big conspiracy to justify the left's insatiable desire to raise our taxes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And if I was the right-wing version of Ty, I would say that it's all one big conspiracy to justify the left's insatiable desire to raise our taxes.

Jesus fucking christ. "Were."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It will not get the press that the US conduct at Abu Ghraib got. That is not because of the "liberal media" (probably the dumbest phrase the right wing has ever cooked up). It is for three very simple reasons:

1. There are no photographs or videotapes.

Exactly why the military must ban soldiers on active duty in Iraq from having cameras.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
3. The actions of the UN soldiers in seeking sex from certain women appears like the opportunistic actions of individuals, whereas the conduct of US soldiers at Abu Ghraib has indicia of being pursuant to policies and orders (unless, of course, we believe that the fact that prisoners were tortured at the one unit of the one prison where the most "high-intelligence value" prisoners were sent is just a big coinky-dink).

Cite please and by cite I mean real evidence. Not just an unverified opinion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Ty, which country provides massive amounts of funding for these UN programs?

As for the taxes, even if you taxed US citizens at a 75% rate of their incomes, that would not generate enough revenue to feed everyone on earth. There are too many people, and some of them live in places where you cannot grow food. Moreover, sky-high tax rates would kill our economy and the revenues would fall not increase because of the damaging effect this would have on the economy.

Moreover, moreover the sad reality is that food aid won't solve the problem and will actually make the underlying problems worse as it will lead to even more people being born in a place where they don't have the resources to support these even more people.

Moreover, moreover, moreover give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can eat for life. Food aid is the wrong approach to solve what ills Africa.

A armload of nifty rhetorical gambits, but I asked the question of club because he was the one gratuitously whacking the UN.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A armload of nifty rhetorical gambits, but I asked the question of club because he was the one gratuitously whacking the UN.

He wasn't gratuitously whacking the UN.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I hate to say this Ty, but it's starting to sound like you are ... not quite defending, but not fully comfortable condemning UN soldiers who abuse their power by withholding food from starving people unless they get sex in return.

The conduct in question is reprehensible.

It will not get the press that the US conduct at Abu Ghraib got. That is not because of the "liberal media" (probably the dumbest phrase the right wing has ever cooked up). It is for three very simple reasons:

1. There are no photographs or videotapes.

2. The UN operation in question in general attracts perhaps 1% of the public attention that the occupation of Iraq does, for very obvious reasons.

3. The actions of the UN soldiers in seeking sex from certain women appears like the opportunistic actions of individuals, whereas the conduct of US soldiers at Abu Ghraib has indicia of being pursuant to policies and orders (unless, of course, we believe that the fact that prisoners were tortured at the one unit of the one prison where the most "high-intelligence value" prisoners were sent is just a big coinky-dink).

I'm not the libertarian here. The article describes run-of-the-mill prostitution, except that (1) the prostitutes are in exceptionally horrid circumstances, and (2) the johns are UN peacekeepers. Since I know that club is libertarian enough to think that prostitution should generally be legal, I couldn't figure out what principle bothered him here, other than (a) the UN should be cast in a bad light. After copious posting, I discern that he thinks that prostitution is generally OK except when the prostitutes are really poor, in which case they should not be allowed to prostitute themselves for food. Since he's not willing to give the UN any more money to do anything about the lousy conditions these people find themselves in, unless and until the NEA is defunded, he apparently thinks that really poor prostitutes should have the good taste to crawl off and die, unless they can embarrass the UN some more by continuing to live.

It's obvious to me that the soldiers are guilty of inhumanity, and that the international community can and should do more to alleviate the conditions of these refugees. We all agree on the first point, but the conservatives here are usually opposed to the second point, for fearing of interfering with market forces.

I still can't tell what this has to do with Abu Ghraib, and club hasn't been able to find any discussion of U.S. soldiers taking advantage of Iraqi prostitutes so he's sort of dropped the "double standard" point.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Cite please and by cite I mean real evidence. Not just an unverified opinion.

Cite for what? For the proposition that the wing of Abu Ghraib was where they sent high-intelligence value prisoners? Have you been reading the press on this?

And do you think it was a coincidence that intelligence officers and "civilian contractors" (aka mercenaries) happened to be in the torture cham... um, the prison wing, as shown in the photos?

And do you think that soldiers repeatedly posing for photos as they torture prisoners have any reason to believe that their actions are contrary to military policy?


Of course, you're right that the presence of cameras, and not the organized torture of prisoners, is the problem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And if I was the right-wing version of Ty, I would say that it's all one big conspiracy to justify the left's insatiable desire to raise our taxes.

The key point here being that the right-wing posters now must ritually invoke the phrase "conspiracy theory".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
He wasn't gratuitously whacking the UN.

Your point being that the UN deserves it, right?