The Million Moustache March

[MrSanity]

Of course, I'm talking about radical feminism, the chauvanism of our time. Rather than celebrate gender diversity, the Marxist left believes in no such thing, unless we're talking about who is more compassionate. These people believe chivalry is chauvanism. They have no shame in children being born into wedlock. Frankly, I'm disgusted with it.

So the awful solutions come in to play in order to feminize society:
* Ban boxing
* Ban gun ownership
* Propose thought crime legislation
* Bring special interest groups into public schools
* Sensativity training for police officers
* Enforce separation of church and private citizens
* Force women to register for the draft

Can't you see how they are robbing us of our freedom in the name of civil liberties?

[Rhino]

You're not alone.

Women already register for the draft, which I approve of.

[Wolfcounsel]

I thought the law did not allow women to register for the draft.

[Wyatt_Junker]

The one hundred gazillion bearded clam marchy march march festival. Lick-La-Pa-Looza. Girls Gone Butch. And when they march I want HIGH KNEES as my football coach used to say. Make those knees whack them milk sacks goiles. March. March. 1,2,3... Mush. Mush. A sea of flannel swallowed up in a haze of smelly ripe chum. One million uterii. A million pap smears just waiting to go down. Two million boobies. Ten million raunchy toes with Lee Press On fried eggs on nails. The Tuna Brigade. Onward! Mush. Mush.

[Rhino]

I thought the law did not allow women to register for the draft.I stand (or sit) corrected.

[Rhino]

Members of the Reserve and National Guard not on full-time active duty must also register. That seems stupid. We already know who they are and can activate them at any time.

[uncommon1]

That was my first thought when I saw the title of the thread. Don't forget that they've gotten dodgeball banned and now they're working on tag. I've come to the conclusion that the real reason they want those games banned is not so much that it may hurt self-esteem, but because they never win at it. It's all about dumbing down America so that they don't have to compete. Unfortunately for them, as the rest of the country is dumbed down, they are too, and just keep staying one rung below everyone else. I understand how they think, as my own mom is a bitter feminist. They are mostly mad because they aren't men and never learned that they could have it all if they'd just be the women that God made them to be. I could almost feel sorry for them. Naaaaahhhhh!

[Rhino]

It's all about dumbing down America so that they don't have to compete.Like not giving failing grades or using red pencil/ink for fear of hurting their self esteem.

[uncommon1]

The self esteem issue has gotten so out of control that the kids get in trouble for calling each other names like retard, idiot, stupid, or any of the other normal impolite words that we used on a daily basis when i was growing up. My 4th grade son came home the other day complaining that he got in trouble for calling someone retarded and he had gotten the lecture from the teachers. I told him not to do that anymore, and that he should just call the morons "democrats." He is now using that and it seems to be going right over the teachers' collective heads. This is one of the few times I can actually say that I love a dumbed down America. thank you, feminists!

[The_Elucidator]

The one hundred gazillion bearded clam marchy march march festival. Lick-La-Pa-Looza. Girls Gone Butch. And when they march I want HIGH KNEES as my football coach used to say. Make those knees whack them milk sacks goiles. March. March. 1,2,3... Mush. Mush. A sea of flannel swallowed up in a haze of smelly ripe chum. One million uterii. A million pap smears just waiting to go down. Two million boobies. Ten million raunchy toes with Lee Press On fried eggs on nails. The Tuna Brigade. Onward! Mush. Mush.

Knock it off Wyatt, ya turd, I just spit animal cracker through my nose on my keyboard.

[Antigone]

I told him not to do that anymore, and that he should just call the morons "democrats." He is now using that and it seems to be going right over the teachers' collective heads. This is one of the few times I can actually say that I love a dumbed down America. thank you, feminists!

I'm sure they believe he is paying them a compliment. :D

Keep up the good work.

[gnome]

The self esteem issue has gotten so out of control that the kids get in trouble for calling each other names like retard, idiot, stupid, or any of the other normal impolite words that we used on a daily basis when i was growing up. My 4th grade son came home the other day complaining that he got in trouble for calling someone retarded and he had gotten the lecture from the teachers. I told him not to do that anymore, and that he should just call the morons "democrats." He is now using that and it seems to be going right over the teachers' collective heads. This is one of the few times I can actually say that I love a dumbed down America. thank you, feminists!

All right, time for my first official PC(tm) rant!!!! :eek:

But seriously, people... my comments here aren't about "offending people" or "being sensitive" or anything like that. It's about accuracy. The word "retarded" has a specific meaning that has nothing to do with the ordinary stupidity of some lame kid another kid wants to insult. It is, frankly, incorrect vocabulary. Isn't it a GOOD thing for a teacher to encourage a kid to use a word according to its meaning instead of the made-up meaning it's come to take on?

If you're going to fight the good fight against hypersensitive or bullying politicians perverting the language for their own ends, why not at the same time fight to keep people from stupidly perverting the language just because they don't know what a word means?

[Rhino]

Like "ignorant"?

[Lazarus]

The one hundred gazillion bearded clam marchy march march festival. Lick-La-Pa-Looza. Girls Gone Butch. And when they march I want HIGH KNEES as my football coach used to say. Make those knees whack them milk sacks goiles. March. March. 1,2,3... Mush. Mush. A sea of flannel swallowed up in a haze of smelly ripe chum. One million uterii. A million pap smears just waiting to go down. Two million boobies. Ten million raunchy toes with Lee Press On fried eggs on nails. The Tuna Brigade. Onward! Mush. Mush.:roar: Gasp Gasp! I cant breathe!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[MrSanity]

The self esteem issue has gotten so out of control that the kids get in trouble for calling each other names like retard, idiot, stupid, or any of the other normal impolite words that we used on a daily basis when i was growing up. My 4th grade son came home the other day complaining that he got in trouble for calling someone retarded and he had gotten the lecture from the teachers. I told him not to do that anymore, and that he should just call the morons "democrats." He is now using that and it seems to be going right over the teachers' collective heads. This is one of the few times I can actually say that I love a dumbed down America. thank you, feminists!Ha, that's great. I think your son will become a conservative intellectual one day. You should pat yourself on the back for your style of parenting.

That's what I loathe about hate-crime..., I'm sorry, I meant thought-crime legislation. You should see some of the laws they have in South Africa. They'll throw you behind bars for using the word "fat" to describe someone. Canada is on board right behind them. They have laws that virtually censor the Bible. As someone who values freedom of religion, I'm afraid we are dangerously close. It's shameful to support SOME elements of free speech/first amendment rights, while destroying others.

I think that the FCC, while not as extreme, isn't always right either. While I find Howard Stern to have questionable morals, I contend that he was framed, given his audience is predominately of a mature age. He got hit with a big fine when a caller used a racial slur.

Janet Jackson exposing her breasts on national TV is a different story. Millions of kids saw it, and I'm sure most believe it was pushing indecency to a young audience. But would I fine CBS as much as they did? No. CBS made an effort to focus the camera elsewhere.

The idea is to protect freedom of speech, but punish yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I think both sides in their extremity are capable of pushing their idea of decency too far, and defeating the purpose of the first amendment.

I don't like everything - or anything - that Al Franken has to say about conservatives, but if we shouted him down through legislation, we would not allow the public to know where he stands. Rather, I prefer we allow a counterpoint, such as frankenlies.com to expose his manipulations.

[MrSanity]

You're not alone.

Women already register for the draft, which I approve of.I am completely opposed to the draft. People like Ruth Ginsberg want to give the government the right to send my wife off to war, which frankly terrifies me that she is in a position of power.

[MrSanity]

Like not giving failing grades or using red pencil/ink for fear of hurting their self esteem.That's why I like the idea of "reverse psychiatry." Sometimes you have to be brutally honest because you want someone to succeed. It doesn't help someone if you're always giving them a shoulder to cry on.

[Wolfcounsel]

I hope this "low esteem" syndrome does not drift into our Military. Can you imagine a recruit suing his instructor because he was called a retarded scumbag?

[Rhino]

I am completely opposed to the draft. People like Ruth Ginsberg want to give the government the right to send my wife off to war, which frankly terrifies me that she is in a position of power.Well, there's a big difference between registering for the draft and actually instituting a draft. By design, a draft would not be instituted except in a circumstance of dire need. In such circumstances, it would terrify me far more if people thought they shouldn't serve their country than if one of my loved ones was included. The lack of defense in dire circumstances would entail far worse consequences to my relatives than the possibility that they might be killed or injured in the defense of this nation. I very much believe that death in the service of our nation is far preferable than a life of servitude under a despotic regime.

[Rhino]

By the way, what does Ruth Ginsberg have to do with the draft?

[Maggie_T]

I hope this "low esteem" syndrome does not drift into our Military. Can you imagine a recruit suing his instructor because he was called a retarded scumbag?--Wolfcounsel
<!-- / message -->


Well, Counselor, speaking of that, didn't you hear that from now on recruit instructors will no longer shout at the dear, delicate recruits? Oh, no. No more of that. You see, the light bulbs that are trying to ban shouting on boot camps got to the brilliant conclusion that "boys" and girls are dropping from boot camps because harsh yelling from instructors hurt their delicate feelings. I kid you not. It was all over the place a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure there's a thread somewhere on FC.

Anyway, just to show what utter RETARDS these pseudo-psychologists are, instead of just letting the delicate ones leave - would YOU want such whiny morons "defending" our country? - they lower the standards of the military yet again.

When I heard this imbecility, I yelled "Let the whiny bastards GO!" If they fold like Chinese fans just because someone yells at them, can you imagine how these losers would disgrace themselves (and the country) on the battlefield?

But the lightbulbs never thought of that. No, they were too busy wringing their hands over the feelings of a bunch of sissies of both genders.

And some people are shocked when I tell them that the left wants to anihilate this country, starting with the military.

[Maggie_T]

So the awful solutions come in to play in order to feminize society:
* Ban boxing
* Ban gun ownership
* Propose thought crime legislation
* Bring special interest groups into public schools
* Sensativity training for police officers
* Enforce separation of church and private citizens
* Force women to register for the draft


You do realize of course what this really means? This means that women are too delicate, too sissy, too "nervous" to be real leaders.

Apparently, old-fashioned "oppressive" males were right, after all. Women should be kept busy bringing up babies, baking cookies, and darning socks. Because, obviously, when strength and action and firm decisions are to be taken it takes a man to do all that. Women would waste precious time wringing their hands about hurting the enemy's feelings, and screaming in terror at the first loud noise.

Well, thank you for that piece of honesty, feminazis. From now on, I'll make perfectly sure I NEVER vote for a woman for president. I certainly do not want a fat, stupid slob, eating chocolates and reading Fabio novels/watching Oprah in the Oval Office, while the enemy is raging at the gate.

Always good to know who you can rely on in difficult times.

[Wolfcounsel]

"No more of that. You see, the light bulbs that are trying to ban shouting on boot camps got to the brilliant conclusion that "boys" and girls are dropping from boot camps because harsh yelling from trainers hurt their delicate feelings. I kid you not. It was all over the place a couple of weeks ago." --Maggie_T

My stomach is growling. A word to you Kumbaya singers out there powdering your candy asses--


It will be too late for the whiner who is allowed to be himself in boot camp. Candy ass or not, he will be placed in harm's way.

Okay. Back to the original topic about the feminist dumbasses marching or something.

[Rhino]

You do realize of course what this really means? This means that women are too delicate, too sissy, too "nervous" to be real leaders.Oh, God!! Don't ever say that to my wife!!! LOL!

[Peachdiane]

Women would waste precious time wringing their hands about hurting the enemy's feelings, and screaming in terror at the first loud noise.

IOW, Clintoon is a woman?

BTW good post. :D

[BuckeyeMike]

IOW, Clintoon is a woman?

BTW good post. :D



Which one?

[BuckeyeMike]

By the way, what does Ruth Ginsberg have to do with the draft?


The only thing I can think of is the icy draft you feel whenever she or The Bitch are in the vicinity.

[MrSanity]

By the way, what does Ruth Ginsberg have to do with the draft?Ginsburg has advocated not only to require women to register for it, but to assign them combat duty, according to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, cited by the Phyllis Schlafly Report.

[MrSanity]

You do realize of course what this really means? This means that women are too delicate, too sissy, too "nervous" to be real leaders.

Apparently, old-fashioned "oppressive" males were right, after all. Women should be kept busy bringing up babies, baking cookies, and darning socks. Because, obviously, when strength and action and firm decisions are to be taken it takes a man to do all that. Women would waste precious time wringing their hands about hurting the enemy's feelings, and screaming in terror at the first loud noise.

Well, thank you for that piece of honesty, feminazis. From now on, I'll make perfectly sure I NEVER vote for a woman for president. I certainly do not want a fat, stupid slob, eating chocolates and reading Fabio novels/watching Oprah in the Oval Office, while the enemy is raging at the gate.

Always good to know who you can rely on in difficult times.Just to be clear...

Was this comedy, sarcasm, or abstract hallucination?

First off, I laid out the agenda for radical feminism, notice my rhetoric. I will be voting for many women for high positions this fall because they rightfully belong in office, and will not stoop to the insanity of moral relativism.

[Rhino]

Ginsburg has advocated not only to require women to register for it, but to assign them combat duty, according to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, cited by the Phyllis Schlafly Report.Well, one of my neighbors could advocate that too, but neither one has any chance of making it happen.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Isn't it a GOOD thing for a teacher to encourage a kid to use a word according to its meaning instead of the made-up meaning it's come to take on?

Hmmmm .... you mean like the word "homosexual" and the word "gay"? :rolleyes:

If you're going to fight the good fight against hypersensitive or bullying politicians perverting the language for their own ends, why not at the same time fight to keep people from stupidly perverting the language just because they don't know what a word means?

How about those who pervert a word just to make it more palatable for the masses, so that its real, disgusting meaning be lost in translation? :smirky: But I digress . . .


Regarding the original post, kids today are insulated from reality and pablum fed. There will ALWAYS be freak-accidents and unforseen incidents, we can't stop ever single little hurt or boo-boo from happening. My question is why are we trying to? Diamonds don't become so unelss under pressure and polished. WE as people need to undergo a similar process. What comes to mind is the old saying, "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger."

One of the biggest accusations that is slammed against me (and homeschoolers in general) is that I am trying to isolate my kids from reality, but that's not true. I'm trying to insulate them, and their insulation is tested in much greater ways because they are forced to deal with a world that does not look favorably upon the choices of their parents.

Kids like the one referred to here: High school student and his Bush-bashing English teacher (Larry Elder column) (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=40879) . . . they are being insulated with proper parenting, good information, and so are able to take the REAL slings and arrows of the world (like the English teacher). We need to stop pansifying our children.

[MrSanity]

One of the biggest accusations that is slammed against me (and homeschoolers in general) is that I am trying to isolate my kids from reality, but that's not true. I'm trying to insulate them, and their insulation is tested in much greater ways because they are forced to deal with a world that does not look favorably upon the choices of their parents.I am likely to follow suit as well. While private schools may have their setbacks as far as the money goes, I am considering enrolling my daughter in one when she is of age. It is a parental right, and an obligation, to raise your kids according to your judgement. There are some left-wingers out there who want the public schools to have a monopoly because they teach global warming, evolution, and American history from a left-wing standpoint. Because of this, they think the government is doing a great job. That's why they object to parental rights.

[MrSanity]

Well, one of my neighbors could advocate that too, but neither one has any chance of making it happen.If you were a Senator, would you approve of Ruth Ginsburg's nomination for the Supreme Court?

[Rhino]

Just for the sake of argument? I don't really see the relation.

Probably not, but if I were a Senator, I'd like to think that I would make such decisions based on factual evidence related to the appointment rather than on heresay or anecdotal evidence, or on personal opinions unrelated to the positions. Assuming the anecdotal and heresay evidence I have heard is true though, I would have to say no. She appears to interpret law not according to the Constitution or statutes, but rather by her own personal opinions and biases. No Justice should do that, regardless of their political persuasion.

[Maggie_T]

Just to be clear...

Was this comedy, sarcasm, or abstract hallucination?

First off, I laid out the agenda for radical feminism, notice my rhetoric. I will be voting for many women for high positions this fall because they rightfully belong in office, and will not stoop to the insanity of moral relativism.

(Oh, dear :rolleyes: ) Keep your shirt on, dearie. It was sarcasm directed at radical feminism.

Allow me to explain (since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake). Feminazis are always saying that they can meet men halfway, that they are as good as men, that they are as strong and tough as men, blah, blah, blah.

But when it comes to making strong and maybe (gasp!) unpopular decisions (like going to war), they immediately go back to the characterization of women-as-ever-tender-and-soft they purport to despise under other circumstances. Suddenly they want everything to be nice, soft, non-violent, and, well, feminine.

The only time feminazis are "stern" is when they are going against their nemesis, The Evil White Heterosexual Conservative Man (that's you, I think). Feminazis LOVE it when Angelina Jolie gets another tattoo, or when she refuses to marry Brad (SO tough of her), or when women kill unborn babies (so strong of them). But that's as far as their "toughness" will go. When it comes to dealing with the enemy (the real one), they all go back to "talking, giving more money, peace-at-any-cost." Hence, my post.

Nobody likes a strong, tough woman more than I. In fact, I chose my internet name (Maggie T) in homage of a true, no-nonsense Iron Lady: Margaret Thatcher. But when I say "strong and tough" I don't mean that woman has to hate white heterosexual conservative men. I mean she has to have the guts to recognize the enemy, call him/her such, and deal with it accordingly.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

Oh, and one more thing, ducky. Next time, try not to jump to conclusions, will you. It will make it easier for you to live up to your name.

[Maggie_T]

BTW good post. :D

Well, I'm glad to see someone understood what my post was all about. :rolleyes:

[MrSanity]

(Oh, dear :rolleyes: ) Keep your shirt on, dearie. It was sarcasm directed at radical feminism.Ahh... I can only understand my own sarcasm, apparently. I figured it was possibly sarcasm, and I didn't jump to conclusions, which is why I asked in the form of a question. Of course, if I posted this thread on a site with liberals, you can bet I would be called "sexist" or any other "ist" or "ic" in lib-speak. What can I say, I'm accustomed to accusations.

The only time feminazis are "stern" is when they are going against their nemesis, The Evil White Heterosexual Conservative Man (that's you, I think).Pretty much.

[Rhino]

Well, I'm glad to see someone understood what my post was all about. :rolleyes:I did. Cracked me up. :D

[MrSanity]

Just for the sake of argument? I don't really see the relation.

Probably not, but if I were a Senator, I'd like to think that I would make such decisions based on factual evidence related to the appointment rather than on heresay or anecdotal evidence, or on personal opinions unrelated to the positions. Assuming the anecdotal and heresay evidence I have heard is true though, I would have to say no. She appears to interpret law not according to the Constitution or statutes, but rather by her own personal opinions and biases. No Justice should do that, regardless of their political persuasion.I agree that she represents a small minority that is in power. I'd beg God to keep it that way.

[Maggie_T]

Ahh... I can only understand my own sarcasm, apparently. I figured it was possibly sarcasm, and I didn't jump to conclusions, which is why I asked in the form of a question. Of course, if I posted this thread on a site with liberals, you can bet I would be called "sexist" or any other "ist" or "ic" in lib-speak.

*S N O R T* Think what they'd call me.:rolleyes:

What can I say, I'm accustomed to accusations.

Me too. Especially from liberals. In fact, I expect nothing else from them.

Sorry if I lashed out at you, Mr. S. I'm in a right state today. My day started (early, I may add) with a nasty argument over politics. Not a good way to start any day, especially in the early hours, when I'm usually NOT at my best. :blush:

Anyway, no hard feelings, I hope. I'm afraid I have a bit of a temper. Ask anyone here.

[Maggie_T]

I did. Cracked me up. :D

;)

[LightHorseman]

Women already register for the draft, which I approve of.

Help me out... does America draft people? or do you just have to be registered for if and when?

[MrSanity]

Help me out... does America draft people? or do you just have to be registered for if and when?Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy did their fair share if I'm not mistaken.

[Rhino]

Help me out... does America draft people? or do you just have to be registered for if and when?Just register, generally upon reaching age 18.

[MrSanity]

Anyway, no hard feelings, I hope. I'm afraid I have a bit of a temper. Ask anyone here.That's quite alright, I can live with it if you can.


:thumb:

[LightHorseman]

Ah. So you don't have an actual draft in place except for when you need it?

Curious.

[Wolfcounsel]

"So you don't have an actual draft in place except for when you need it?" --LightHorseman

That would have to be a national emergency, like the United Nations sending their candy assed baby blue-helmeted weenies to try to--no. Never mind. A few hundred of our civilian snipers would take them all out in no time.

I don't want someone fighting alongside me if he had to be pried away from behind mommy's dress. We'd have to take those sissies along with the men who would be drafted but be willing to fight.

[Rhino]

Ah. So you don't have an actual draft in place except for when you need it?

Curious.Why is that curious?

[The_Elucidator]

Ah. So you don't have an actual draft in place except for when you need it?

Curious.

You don't want someone covering your six who can't spell six!

[LightHorseman]

That would have to be a national emergency, like the United Nations sending their candy assed baby blue-helmeted weenies to try to--no. Never mind. A few hundred of our civilian snipers would take them all out in no time.


Having a blue berret in my cupboard... would you like to rephrase? On what possible grounds do you think it likely the U.N. would put Peace Keepers into the U.S. and be resisted? You DO know that there are American Peace Keepers as well, right?

Why is that curious?

Oh, I just find it curious that you have to be registered for the draft even when there isn't a draft going on... I'd have thought that with social security numbers and such they'd just send you a letter one day "guess what, you're in the Army now", and that would be it. Actually having to register seems an unusual formality is all.

You don't want someone covering your six who can't spell six!

Huh? Of course I believe that the military needs to maintain an inteligence standard, but what does this have to do with the draft?

[DoctorDoom]

Having a blue berret in my cupboard... would you like to rephrase?Why? UN blue is a good color. It's easy to spot with sniper scopes.

[LightHorseman]

Why? UN blue is a good color. It's easy to spot with sniper scopes.

As are the white painted vehicles, which is rather the point.

Although I happily admit to being glad of a blue kevlar helmet one day in Northern Cambodia... I would have prefered it were camed up even more.

[MSGT]

John Kerry?

[Maggie_T]

That would have to be a national emergency, like the United Nations sending their candy assed baby blue-helmeted weenies to try to--

-- rape women? I hear they become less candy assed when it comes to that. Reminds me of the old saying "Only a coward is brave with women."


I don't want someone fighting alongside me if he had to be pried away from behind mommy's dress.


No kidding. It's tantamount to immediate surrender.

[Tazeeyore]

I hope this "low esteem" syndrome does not drift into our Military. Can you imagine a recruit suing his instructor because he was called a retarded scumbag?

Too late wolf. Recruits have stress cards in their pockets now and can pull them out whenever a TI, DI, or other training officer gets their sensitivity in a snit. Such foolishness will get them killed on the battle field. Can you imagine a new soldier under fire from these mangy dogs called Muslims and he pulls his stress card out snivelling uncontrollably. They will behead his stupid ass and shove that card right up it.

[LightHorseman]

-- rape women? I hear they become less candy assed when it comes to that. Reminds me of the old saying "Only a coward is brave with women."


What are you on?

[MSGT]

What are you on?

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA545UNScandals.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52333-2005Mar20.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1413501,00.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42088

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42877

http://txfx.net/2005/01/08/ongoing-un-rape/

Thats the first page in a google search.

[LightHorseman]

Yeah. Thats what the primary purpose of Peace Keeper ops is.

[MSGT]

Yeah. Thats what the primary purpose of Peace Keeper ops is.
OK, If you say so dude.

Is that what you did when you had on your blue berret?

[Wolfcounsel]

"Although I happily admit to being glad of a blue kevlar helmet one day in Northern Cambodia... I would have prefered it were camed up even more." --LightHorseman

OOOOH! KEVLAR even! Camed up? Just click down some a bit. Nothing but throat.:evilgrin:

------------------------------------------------------------------

"You DO know that there are American Peace Keepers as well, right?" --LightHorseman

You mean they defend the Constitution or they are dead meat?

[DoctorDoom]

Yeah. Thats what the primary purpose of Peace Keeper ops is.Yeah, we know what those contemptible bastards are.

With the United Nations already under fire for the Oil-for-Food mega-scandal and other corruption, sensational allegations of rampant sexual exploitation and rape of young girls and women by the U.N.'s so-called "peacekeepers" and civilian staffers in the Congo is dragging the global body's reputation to an all-time low.

In a new report referring to the widespread sex scandal as "the U.N.'s Abu Ghraib," the London Times provides some specific examples, including:<ul>
<li>A French U.N. logistics expert in the Congo shot pornographic videos in his home, in which he had converted his bedroom into a photo studio for videotaping his sexual abuse of young girls. When police raided his home, the man was allegedly about to rape a 12-year-old girl sent to him in a law enforcement sting operation. As the Times reported, a senior Congolese police officer confirmed the bed was surrounded by large mirrors on three sides, with a remote control camera on the fourth side.

<li>U.N. officials are worried that the scandal, which already has netted 150 allegations of sex crimes by U.N. staffers, will explode if the pornographic videos and photos, now on sale in Congo, becoming public

"It would be a pretty big problem for the U.N. if these pictures come out," one senior official told the Times.

<li>Two Russian pilots paid young girls with jars of mayonnaise and jam to have sex with them, the report adds.

<li>U.N. "peacekeepers" from Morocco based in Kisangani – a secluded town on the Congo River – are notorious for impregnating local women and girls. In March, an international group probing the scandal found 82 women and girls had been made pregnant by Moroccan U.N. staffers and 59 others by Uruguayan staffers. One U.N. soldier accused of rape was apparently hidden in the barracks for a year.

Congo's Minister of Defense Maj.-Gen. Jean Pierre Ondekane told a top U.N. official that all U.N. "peacekeepers" in Kisangani would be remembered for would be "for running after little girls," the Times reported.

<li>And at least two U.N. officials – a Ukrainian and a Canadian – have been forced to leave the African nation after getting local women pregnant.</ul>U.N. 'peacekeepers' rape women, children (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42088)

[LightHorseman]

Notice there are no Australian or American Blue Hats mentioned, just glorified militia from some of those looser countries.

[Maggie_T]

Well, that does not delete the fact that blue-helmeted UN "peace keepers" were the ones who perpetrated the rapes, does it, ducky.

As for your question "what are you on?" I'm "on" the truth, dear. Liberals are allergic to it, so don't try it at home.

Oh, pardon me. I forget. You're not a liberal.

[Maggie_T]

"You DO know that there are American Peace Keepers as well, right?" --LightHorseman

You mean they defend the Constitution or they are dead meat?


I'd say they would be dead meat for defending the Constitution. Didn't Al Gore tell us it is a "living document"? According to that, liberals want to change the Constitution, not defend it.

[LightHorseman]

Well, that does not delete the fact that blue-helmeted UN "peace keepers" were the ones who perpetrated the rapes, does it, ducky.

True. And the UN, by and large, is about as corrupt as the member nations in it.

However, are you suggesting that criminal behaviour amongst Peace Keepers is the exception or the rule?

[LightHorseman]

OOOOH! KEVLAR even! Camed up? Just click down some a bit. Nothing but throat

Um... my field craft is good enough that my throat wasn't exposed.

[Maggie_T]

True. And the UN, by and large, is about as corrupt as the member nations in it.

Glad we agree.

However, are you suggesting that criminal behaviour amongst Peace Keepers is the exception or the rule?


No. I'm saying that I am not surprised that rape would be among the crimes perpetrated by an institution as corrupt as the UN. That is why the UN should be completely and finally dismanteled, or sent to The Hague, and peace should be obtained through the infallible, time-tried method: superior force.

[LightHorseman]

Originally Posted by Wolfcounsel

"You DO know that there are American Peace Keepers as well, right?" --LightHorseman

You mean they defend the Constitution or they are dead meat?


Huh?

Seriously, I understand having problems with the U.N.... they are about as incompetent, in fighting group of self serving wankers as you could want... they can't agree on the colur of shit, and getting them to agree on any given issue is like herding cats...

But where does all this animosity towards Peace Keepers come from? Blue Hats can be neatly hamstrung by overly restrictive OFOF, but you don't aprove of the job that they TRY to do?

individual cases of assault and sexual assault aside, that is.

[LightHorseman]

No. I'm saying that I am not surprised that rape would be among the crimes perpetrated by an institution as corrupt as the UN. That is why the UN should be completely and finally dismanteled, or sent to The Hague, and peace should be obtained through the infallible, time-tried method: superior force.

But the rapes aren't perpetrated by the U.N., just individual soldiers! I mean, you think every single American GI in the Gulf has behaved spotlessly? Assuming a minority have disgraced themselves doesn't mean the whole OP IRAQI FREEDOM is suspect, does it?

If some squadie rapes a national, hang him out to dry... thats HIS problem, not the whole organisation, right?

[Wolfcounsel]

"Um... my field craft is good enough that my throat wasn't exposed." --LightHorseman

My remark was facetious. Trust me, you were not bullet-proof.

[LightHorseman]

My remark was facetious. Trust me, you were not bullet-proof.

I know. Which is why my helmet and I dug ourselves into the ground face first...

[Wolfcounsel]

"But where does all this animosity towards Peace Keepers come from? Blue Hats can be neatly hamstrung by overly restrictive OFOF, but you don't aprove of the job that they TRY to do?" --LightHorseman

I believe in the sovereignty of the United States and the Constitution, and if you read my past posts, you will see that I want the United Nations scumbags obliterated from the face of the Earth. Every single one of the slimeballs in that sham circus need to pay the piper. Don't tell me you await a world federation of planets in the near future, eh?

[DoctorDoom]

... peace should be obtained through the infallible, time-tried method: superior force.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/ptsf.jpg

[DoctorDoom]

... but you don't aprove of the job that they TRY to do?Show us where they have actually done what they allegedly tried to do. Ask Israel about how effective they were in "peacekeeping" during the Hezbollah confrontation.

DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.What did you do in the war, UNIFIL? (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp)

... a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978 ...And where were the "peacekeepers" who had supposedly been keeping the peace for 28 years when the Hezzies were launching Katyusha rockets by the hundreds into Israeli towns?

The UN has no function. Exterminate it.

[LightHorseman]

I believe in the sovereignty of the United States and the Constitution,

Great. Me too.

if you read my past posts, you will see that I want the United Nations scumbags obliterated from the face of the Earth. Every single one of the slimeballs in that sham circus need to pay the piper.
Would you enlighten me as to why? You don't aprove of the Americans in it either, or the way the U.S. uses the U.N. as a vehicle for its foreign policy? If your against the backbiting and corruption, I'm with you. And having Liberia' vote worth the same as a real countries is a recipe for trouble too... but you don't even like the ide of the U.N.?

Don't tell me you await a world federation of planets in the near future, eh?<!-- / message -->

Nope. I'm a big fan of national sovereignty. But as a tool for trying to mediate international relations, between sovereign states, I think the U.N. is a sound idea, although the actual practice of it could usre a lot of cleaning up.

[Maggie_T]

But the rapes aren't perpetrated by the U.N., just individual soldiers! I mean, you think every single American GI in the Gulf has behaved spotlessly? Assuming a minority have disgraced themselves doesn't mean the whole OP IRAQI FREEDOM is suspect, does it?

If some squadie rapes a national, hang him out to dry... thats HIS problem, not the whole organisation, right?

HM, let me put it this way. I trust the US military countless times more than I trust the UN.

Our soldiers are court-martialled if is so much as a whiff of scandal is breathed (by the enemy) in their direction. Ask those on trial at Camp Pendleton.

The UN merely sweeps its crimes under the carpet, as they did with the rape cases and the Food for Oil scandal. With the complicity of their partners-in-crime, the drive-by media.

And please spare me any protestations like "Oh, the UN rapists were brought to justice," or things of the sort. At best, we only have their word for it. And I put as much value on any "word" from the UN as I put on a certain smelly thing civilized people flush down the toilet.

[LightHorseman]

Show us where they have actually done what they allegedly tried to do.

East Timor, Bouganville, Cambodia, and Somalia all worked out fine. At least while Aussie Blue Hats were there. East Timor has gotta be the big success story of course...

[LightHorseman]

HM, let me put it this way. I trust the US military countless times more than I trust the UN.

So... what about when Peace Keeping OPs are conducted by U.S. troops?

[Wolfcounsel]

"Would you enlighten me as to why? You don't aprove of the Americans in it either, or the way the U.S. uses the U.N. as a vehicle for its foreign policy? If your against the backbiting and corruption, I'm with you. And having Liberia' vote worth the same as a real countries is a recipe for trouble too... but you don't even like the ide of the U.N.?" --LightHorseman

I don't want any world organization in charge of anything. Power corrupts weak people, no matter how rich they are. You will never see any ideal organization made by man running the affairs of this planet. Maybe if they made corruption punishable by death, but I'm not holding my breath.

[LightHorseman]

I don't want any world organization in charge of anything. Power corrupts weak people, no matter how rich they are. You will never see any ideal organization made by man running the affairs of this planet. Maybe if they made corruption punishable by death, but I'm not holding my breath.

So... what would you suggest as a suitable alternative to the U.N.?
Or do you think things would work better if we just left countries to scrum it out together and not get involved as a third party?

[DoctorDoom]

LH, if you're really enamored (enamoured, for the Brits) of the UN, why not start a drive to have it moved the hell out of the US and relocated to Melbourne or Sydney, or to some God-forsaken wide spot in the road in NSW? We won't miss it.

[DoctorDoom]

So... what would you suggest as a suitable alternative to the U.N.?You labor under the illusion that an alternative is required. Inasmuch as the UN is about as functional as a condom on a eunuch, why is it necessary to replace it with something?

[Wolfcounsel]

"So... what would you suggest as a suitable alternative to the U.N.?
Or do you think things would work better if we just left countries to scrum it out together and not get involved as a third party?<!-- / message -->" --LightHorseman

Let them scrum it out, but if they start forming alliances for taking over of other nations, he with the most firepower may step in and annihilate their war machine. Don't need any high-paid con artists to accomplish that. It makes sense to destroy any belligerent war alliances, eh?

[LightHorseman]

LH, if you're really enamored (enamoured, for the Brits) of the UN, why not start a drive to have it moved the hell out of the US and relocated to Melbourne or Sydney, or to some God-forsaken wide spot in the road in NSW? We won't miss it.


When it was set up, didn't the U.S. insist on it being on U.S. soil?

I don't think I'm enamoured of it, particularly... But I don't see why you guys seem to think it is such a BAD thing... I'm hoping someone will try to explain to me what it is about it they don't like, particularly?

I know the corruptiuon problems, and the way the 3rd world majority gangs up against the first world minority, and sure, I think these are all problems that need to be overcome.

But just because you get corrupt cops doesn't mean you should get rid o th police, does it? Like I say, if not the U.N. to at least TRY to regulate international affairs, then who? Or do you think the world is better if each individual nation is left to do its own thing, and sort out international stuff between themselves?

I'm not trying to say its problem free, but its the idea of the thing I approve of. I'm the first to agree that the practical side needs severe overhaul

[Maggie_T]

So... what about when Peace Keeping OPs are conducted by U.S. troops?


:rolleyes: You don't get it, do you.

HM, I'm not trying to debate moral equivalency here. I'm trying to tell you that I despise the UN with every fibre of my being; that I truly believe it should be dismanteled and outlawed. That I think we should remove ourselves from it in every possible connection before it taints us with its corruption and filth. It is a corrupt, worthless, ineffectual behemoth that has no place in a country like ours, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

I have relatives, down in my native South America, who "work" for the UN. They are a bunch of lazy, effete, leftist slobs, with delusions of importance, who do NOTHING at all, except travel all over the world, and for that they get handsomely paid, and those who pay their undeserved salaries are you and I, just in case you were curious.

Furthermore, these UN "workers" are rabidly anti-American, but have no qualms at all when it comes to spending extended periods of time in NYC, "on assignment." And what that translates into is merely living "la vida loca" at your and my expense.

The UN crooks should be prosecuted, convicted, and bannished from the USA. The building should be torn down and in its place, we should built apartments for the deserving working (emphasis on "working") poor.

There. I think I made it clear enough for anyone willing to pay attention.

And now you must excuse me. I have a bunch of chores to do and wasting time talking about the UN cesspool will not get them done.

[LightHorseman]

Let them scrum it out, but if they start forming alliances for taking over of other nations, he with the most firepower may step in and annihilate their war machine. Don't need any high-paid con artists to accomplish that. It makes sense to destroy any belligerent war alliances, eh?

So... who gets to decide who is beligerent?

[Wolfcounsel]

"So... who gets to decide who is beligerent?" --LightHorseman

May I suggest you read THE ART OF WAR, by Sun-Tzu?

[LightHorseman]

May I suggest you read THE ART OF WAR, by Sun-Tzu?

Its right here on my bookshelf...

Doesn't really answer my question though.

You apparently advocate the idea of a "global policeman"... someone to bust up beligerant alliances... so, if not the U.N., then who?

[DoctorDoom]

You apparently advocate the idea of a "global policeman"... someone to bust up beligerant alliances... so, if not the U.N., then who?Why is such a thing necessary? Prior to 1919, mankind went along for millenia without a global nanny to look out for the world. Empires rose and fell. Nations warred with each other until either someone lost or they got bored. And humanity survived and flourished.

The League of Nations renee the United Nations has served no vital function since its inception. And for the last few decades it has become a corrupt, domineering abomination that gives pissant third-world nations as much say as the superpowers. Not without cause is Hugo "Satan's Understudy" Chavez obsessed with gaining a seat on the Security Council.

The UN's only purpose seems to be to crush Israel and control America. To that there's only one rational response: kick the spies and scofflaws the hell out of the US and blow the shit out of that eyesore.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/ScrewUN2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/ShotUpUN.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/US-UNstamp.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/CalvinPeeUN.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/DogPeeUN.png

[Wyatt_Junker]

So... who gets to decide who is beligerent?


Amnesty International.

Human Rights Watch.

The UN Security Council.

Jimmy Carter.

Hamas.

The chubby chick from Nanny 911.

A Ouiji Board.

The flip of a coin.

Reading chicken entrails.

John Kerry.

Saudi Arabia.

Pee Wee Herman.

China.

Whoever wins at rock, paper, scissors.

Or, what would happen to the world if the United States wasn't here: Arbitrariness.

I got an idea. How about we just leave it up to the United States as we have so far? We're the UN anyway, the only teeth of every empty resolution the UN ever moralized on. We get condemned FOR THEIR resolutions, FOR THEIR own words by simply following them, for simply saying words actually matter.

The UN is a force for evil. Its security council is reason enough to raze it out of existence. John Bolton is the only person left in the UN today that is keeping it relevant. He is the only one condemning the anti-semitism, the only one speaking out about true world evil and not convenient propaganda. If you can't see that, you can't be taken seriously and there's nothing I can do to help you.

[DesertFox]

:yeahthat:

[LightHorseman]

I got an idea. How about we just leave it up to the United States as we have so far? We're the UN anyway, the only teeth of every empty resolution the UN ever moralized on. We get condemned FOR THEIR resolutions, FOR THEIR own words by simply following them, for simply saying words actually matter.


*laughs and points at Wyatt*

Yeah, thanks for all the help with East Timor. Oh, and for screwing all our good work in Somalia too. Yep, the U.S. has a great track record with those global hotspots.

[DesertFox]

The UN ain't what it was.

Australia needs to follow America's example and develop a real war machine. America and Australia are both good for the world.

[Wyatt_Junker]

*laughs and points at Wyatt*

Yeah, thanks for all the help with East Timor. Oh, and for screwing all our good work in Somalia too. Yep, the U.S. has a great track record with those global hotspots.


Or Vietnam, or North Korea, or East Germany before the unification for that matter. The U.S. just couldn't 'get it right' there either. Oh well, it must have been a failure.

The problem is that you fail to see just how viral communism was after WW 2 and how it had inserted itself into all those 'global hotspots' and the threat that not only the U.S. but Europe was forced to live under during Russia's global expansionism. You also fail to appreciate the absolute horror of communism itself, not only the gulags(20 million dead) but the bullying fear that it exerted on all of Europe and the rest of the world. That we were forced into the concession of splitting Germany down the middle(one for us, one for Russia), as well as Korea and the same kind of shit was going down in Vietnam. After Vietnam, our perception(correctly so) of East Timor was more of the same kind of relentless acquistions or 'the people's liberation' group of 'whatever' using 'democratic' sounding words for its next communistic uber-ville. BTW, its called balancing if you haven't heard of it, and keeping the scales loaded in our favor by not allowing any further regime flipflops over into communism satellite bases.

Indonesia had its own reasons for keeping ET in its deck of cards, namely that it wanted to keep itself from fractioning apart any further. The U.S. after Vietnam didn't want to see another island slip away to global red paint.

Its really 50/50, the way one looks at it. The pro-com Vietnam guerillas slaughtered hundreds of thousands of its pereceived enemies after our pullout, followed up by Cambodia's killing fields. The fact that ET got its fair share of slaughter also from Indonesia could also be perceived as either half a dozen or 6 short of a dozen.

The problem is that the U.S. shouldn't be the 'peacekeeper'. And neither should there be a 'peacekeeper' body at all. It only clouds the picture. There should only be an annihilator. 'Peace' will get you killed, especially when ethnic divisions don't want reconciliation as is the case in Somalia. Not so, in the Sudan. If its just one force of guerillas attacking mostly a passive populus, its a different matter. You can indiscriminately slam one side down without having to play cop. But where there's Hatfields AND McCoys striving for political superiority, its useless to try to parent them. Slaughter the assholes and let them go through puberty themselves.

In Iraq, for instance, when did Kuwait ever fight back? Answer: they didn't. Its an easy call. Get Saddam back inside his border and dismantle his rape rooms. Taking Saddam out was another matter, but it could have been so much easier if we didn't have so much initial UN pomp & circumstance going in and the response was more immediate, thus gutting our enemy's organizational power and our own anti-US propaganda here at home.

That's why the role of a 'peacekeeper' shouldn't be to tame rival factions vying for power, but to protect the one getting attacked from the agressor by employing the use of quick and unforgivably authoritative force. The thought goes that if you can stop a regime from going sour early, before it sinks in, you can save yourself the trouble of further instability in the region for who knows how long. Look at North Korea to tell you the answer to that one. But, we've always been too nice in these kinds of situations, too easy in accepting concessions, UN or Russian, and just leaving an area or splitting it up and dividing it. Both are wrong.

The third approach is much more amenable. More hard firepower out of the gate. Vietnam? You do the TET offensive to START the war and scale down if necessary from there. We're stuck doing things backwards from a stupid little diplomatic fancy of ours that's lived up our butts for far too long. Its like bargaining your way down on a car's price. You're never going to get a good deal than the sticker price if you don't ask. You should make your first price to the guy in the checkered pants an unflinching lowball. Real low. You do it knowing that the clown is going to counter you back. But, you have to set the ground rules early on. If you don't go down low enough to start, you're never going to get it back later on. You can't bid it down AGAIN. You've played your cards. Its the same with Iraq, Vietnam or any war. You hit hard at the start. You get your enemy's attention. Then, once you have it, you command your ground rules or else suffer more of same. Its not just a UN problem. Its a US problem also, apparently. BTW, none of this detracts from the fact that the U.S. is the official UN. We created it. We can also uncreate it. The UN is merely an antisemitic spewing ground without the U.S. these days. The UN was nothing but our pawn originally. However, it seems that the dog has forgot who its original master was.

[LightHorseman]

Or Vietnam, or North Korea, or East Germany before the unification for that matter. The U.S. just couldn't 'get it right' there either. Oh well, it must have been a failure.


Don't put that Vietnam crap on us. We WON our bit. I don't know what you guys were doing in yours.

In Iraq, for instance, when did Kuwait ever fight back? Answer: they didn't. Its an easy call. Get Saddam back inside his border and dismantle his rape rooms. Taking Saddam out was another matter, but it could have been so much easier if we didn't have so much initial UN pomp & circumstance going in and the response was more immediate, thus gutting our enemy's organizational power and our own anti-US propaganda here at home.

The way the U.N. has carried on over Iraq is disgusting. But its an interesting hypothetical of what the global reaction would have been without the U.N. at all

[Wyatt_Junker]

Don't put that Vietnam crap on us. We WON our bit. I don't know what you guys were doing in yours.

Yes, the kangaroo screwing Dundees are super heros. Pardon me if I forget that. Your hit points are strong and your charm potions(Foster's) yield the enemy so powerless that they are rendered buttfukable. Now, go slap that Men At Work 8 track into your asshole and be proud that that's all your contribution to the world amounts to; Outback Steakhouses and a country's nickname that's a substitute for fellatio.

[LightHorseman]

Seriously. We won our bit. Battle of Long Tan, knocked out the major VC unit in our TAOR, and they were never able to re-establish a foot hold.

Vung Tau and Nui Dat. Look it up.

Austrlian Soldiers only ever lost one battle in our entire history.

Thats the Army of course, I can't make the same claim about the RAN or RAAF

[Wyatt_Junker]

Seriously. We won our bit. Battle of Long Tan, knocked out the major VC unit in our TAOR, and they were never able to re-establish a foot hold.

Vung Tau and Nui Dat. Look it up.

Austrlian Soldiers only ever lost one battle in our entire history.

Thats the Army of course, I can't make the same claim about the RAN or RAAF

Some good links.

http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/vietnam.htm

http://www.naa.gov.au/fsheets/fs117.html

At the high point, the Aussies were committed to 8K.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/vietnam/australia/part3/

As far as individual battles go(U.S.), they have to be taken separately. Overall, the real problem with American involvement was politically, back here at home. And soldiers have no say in that. Troop machismo is really missing the point entirely.

[LightHorseman]

It is true that the Vietnam conflict was lost on the homefront on both sides.

[EveningStar]

From the title of this thread, I'm surprised that no one has asked for a moustache ride yet. :D

[LightHorseman]

Is there some hiden meaning to "moustache ride" I'm unaware of?

[Wolfcounsel]

"Is there some hiden meaning to "moustache ride" I'm unaware of?" --LightHorseman

This forum is read by children and other immature people, so, look it up in google, but one definition is, when you run your razor gently over your moustache (mustache) to trim it.:evilgrin:

[DesertFox]

LightHorse, one of the genders of the human species has more than one set of lips. That means there can theoretically be more than one place for a mustache.

[Timberwolf]

A Monty Python song comes to mind :biggrin:

[Riverboat]

You mean the one about role-playing a seat cushion?