Peacekeeper sex abuse 'too high'

[Mycroft]

There are still too many complaints of sexual abuse against United Nations troops, the head of peacekeeping operations has said.

Jean-Marie Guehenno said the UN had investigated 295 cases under a new reporting system introduced last year.

It could take several more years to reform the system fully, says Jordan's UN envoy who last year urged changes.

The 18 peace missions worldwide employ 85,000 staff from over 100 countries, with a budget of nearly $5bn.

Mr Guehenno said although significant progress had been made in reducing the number of cases of sexual exploitation following an investigation in the Democratic Republic of Congo two years ago, much more needed to be done.

"Allegations being lodged against UN peacekeeping personnel remain high and unacceptably so," he said.

He noted "how hard it is to change a culture of dismissiveness, long developed within ourselves, in our countries and in the mission areas."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4746216.stm

I think a great investment idea would be to manufacture and market "blue helmet" condoms. They could be the same colour blue as is the UN flag, and the foil wrapping could be that same UN blue/white, maybe even with the UN logo.

Yeah, I know. Critics might say that real UN peacekeepers don't use condoms when they sexually exploit the local population, but maybe if these catch on, they will.

[The Fool]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4746216.stm

I think a great investment idea would be to manufacture and market "blue helmet" condoms. They could be the same colour blue as is the UN flag, and the foil wrapping could be that same UN blue/white, maybe even with the UN logo.

Yeah, I know. Critics might say that real UN peacekeepers don't use condoms when they sexually exploit the local population, but maybe if these catch on, they will.

you think this is a humorous topic son?

[Mycroft]

you think this is a humorous topic son?

No, I think it's a topic that should get a lot of attention that creates pressure on the UN to reform its practices and put an end to this shame.

Is it your intent to personalize the issue by talking about me instead of continued UN sex abuse?

[Bjorn]

UN bashing can become an obsession. However, if you look for numbers from, say, US forces:

The data, obtained by the Washington Post under a Freedom of Information Act request, represents the first military-wide annual tallies made public since 1998. The figures show that the total number of reported cases of sexual assault involving Army personnel increased by 19 percent from 1999 to 2002—from 658 to 783—with annual increases ranging from 2 percent to 13 percent. During the same period, the number of reported rapes increased by 25 percent—from 356 to 445.... we might just as well manufacture and market "mission accomplished" condoms. :rolleyes:

[bob_kark]

No, I think it's a topic that should get a lot of attention that creates pressure on the UN to reform its practices and put an end to this shame.

Is it your intent to personalize the issue by talking about me instead of continued UN sex abuse?

So we should place pressure on the UN to use condoms when they sexually abuse civilians?

[Mycroft]

UN bashing can become an obsession. However, if you look for numbers from, say, US forces:

Certainly that would be a cause for concern. Are there numbers making comparisons to UN forces?

What's the source of that snippet?

[Bjorn]

Certainly that would be a cause for concern. Are there numbers making comparisons to UN forces?

What's the source of that snippet?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10959-2004Jun2.html

It's quoted many places, but the source above was, as far as I know, the original one. As for comparing, I have no clue. How many people are in the US Army these days?

[Mycroft]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10959-2004Jun2.html

It's quoted many places, but the source above was, as far as I know, the original one. As for comparing, I have no clue. How many people are in the US Army these days?

Hmm, the paragraph you quoted is not found in that article. That is another article on the same subject.

What's the source of your paragraph?

Edited to add:

The paragraph you snipped is from an article that cites the Washington Post as a source. Some secondary publication.

[Bjorn]

I only went back to WP itself to check the accuracy - my first quote was just one of many referring to WP. The numbers are the same.

[Mycroft]

I only went back to WP itself to check the accuracy - my first quote was just one of many referring to WP. The numbers are the same.

The Washington Post article deals with sexual assault within the army. That is, soldier on soldier assault. The BBC article on the UN deals with sexual exploitation by UN soldiers of the very same native population they’re supposed to be protecting.

While I agree that the Washington Post article raises an issue worthy of attention, wouldn’t you agree it’s a different topic from the BBC article? Wouldn't you agree that sexual exploitation of the native population is different from sexual assault within a military organization?

If your point were that US forces also sexually exploit the native populations where they’re stationed and UN forces should be judged according to the same standard, I could understand that if you were to demonstrate the problem were not any worse with the UN forces than they are with the US forces, but that doesn’t seem to be your point.

Rather, your point seems to be merely an attempt to divert the topic away from addressing the UN issue, as though criticism of any non-US organization could be effectively neutralized by any random criticism of a US organization.

That’s very much like a tu quoque argument. Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html)

I’m sure the US military has many problems worthy of exposing and discussing, but they should be exposed and discussed in addition to the obvious problems with UN forces, not instead of. Problems that may exist within the US military do not make the problems of the UN forces go away or deserve any less attention.

[KelvinG]

I’m sure the US military has many problems worthy of exposing and discussing, but they should be exposed and discussed in addition to the obvious problems with UN forces, not instead of. Problems that may exist within the US military do not make the problems of the UN forces go away or deserve any less attention.

Can we expect you to start a thread anytime soon that exposes and discusses these problems in the US army, Mycroft?
No, of course not. Your biases are well documented and it's obvious you'd much rather focus on the evil UN!!

But, nice try at appearing to be fair and balanced.

[Bjorn]

That’s very much like a tu quoque argument. Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html)

I’m sure the US military has many problems worthy of exposing and discussing, but they should be exposed and discussed in addition to the obvious problems with UN forces, not instead of. Problems that may exist within the US military do not make the problems of the UN forces go away or deserve any less attention.1. Yes, it is Tu Quoque, and I did it because there is an eagerness on this forum to bash the UN for stuff that the US could be bashed for just as easily.

2. I don't have time right now to find sources, but if you really think US soldiers aren't sexually assaulting civilians, I'll find some.

[Oolon Colluphid]

What the US military does to native populations is a matter of public record. Abu Ghraib, springs to mind.....

[Mycroft]

Can we expect you to start a thread anytime soon that exposes and discusses these problems in the US army, Mycroft?

The issue isn’t if I plan to start a thread about it, but if Bjorn does. He’s the one who was aware of the issue and felt it important enough to discuss.

While I personally agree, I think that his raising it in a thread about a different topic indicates his interest is not so much to raise one issue, but to distract from another.


No, of course not. Your biases are well documented and it's obvious you'd much rather focus on the evil UN!!

But, nice try at appearing to be fair and balanced.

When did I ever claim to be fair and balanced? I have my issues of special interest just like everyone else. Just like you, in fact.

What I don’t do is try to prevent others from discussing issues of importance by using these diversionary tactics. If I want to criticize what you say, I think it’s important that I at least stay on topic in order to do so.

[Kerberos]

No, I think it's a topic that should get a lot of attention that creates pressure on the UN to reform its practices and put an end to this shame.
Could you give some examples of what practises are problematic and what reforms should be implemented? The UN does not train either the soldiers or the officers nor do they as far as I know really "command" UN missions. If the troops that can be recruited for a given mission have bad dicipline and officers that tolerate I'm not sure what you expect the organization to do about that. I supose the SC could chose not send the mission, but that's more a question for Bush, Blair and Chirac not for Kofi Annan.

[Mycroft]

Could you give some examples of what practises are problematic and what reforms should be implemented? The UN does not train either the soldiers or the officers nor do they as far as I know really "command" UN missions. If the troops that can be recruited for a given mission have bad dicipline and officers that tolerate I'm not sure what you expect the organization to do about that. I supose the SC could chose not send the mission, but that's more a question for Bush, Blair and Chirac not for Kofi Annan.

From the article:

He noted "how hard it is to change a culture of dismissiveness, long developed within ourselves, in our countries and in the mission areas."

Mr Guehenno said only the strict enforcement of a complete ban on prostitution in areas occupied by peacekeepers could strengthen the UN's policy of zero tolerance against sexual exploitation.

So we have within the article identified some specific problems and some specific solutions. I hope the UN is addressing the problem in more ways that just enforcing a ban on prostitution, but at least we know that's one positive thing they're doing.

[Mycroft]

1. Yes, it is Tu Quoque, and I did it because there is an eagerness on this forum to bash the UN for stuff that the US could be bashed for just as easily.

But tu quoque is a logical fallacy. Just because the US can be bashed for something doesn’t mean a non-US agency shouldn’t be bashed for the same thing.


2. I don't have time right now to find sources, but if you really think US soldiers aren't sexually assaulting civilians, I'll find some.

So you don’t know, but you’re taking it on faith that the problem is at least as bad within the US military as it is with the UN? What sort of logic is that?

Essentially you’re saying that no non-US agency should ever be criticized because something comparable can be found in the US to be criticized instead.

Tell me, should problems outside the US ever be addressed?

[Bjorn]

But tu quoque is a logical fallacy. Just because the US can be bashed for something doesn’t mean a non-US agency shouldn’t be bashed for the same thing.Yes, I admitted that, and gave the reason why I posted in such a way anyhow: The UN bashing on this board. Pretty much like ''Clinton did so too' when the Bush-bashers go too far.

So you don’t know, but you’re taking it on faith that the problem is at least as bad within the US military as it is with the UN? What sort of logic is that?Oh yes, I know that US soldiers sexually assault civilians (which was my statement) in countries where they fight. I was just saying that I didn't have the time to search for articles right now. Do you think they don't?

Essentially you’re saying that no non-US agency should ever be criticized because something comparable can be found in the US to be criticized instead.

Tell me, should problems outside the US ever be addressed?No, I'm not saying that. However, people who are not - by their own account - fair and balanced, shouldn't be surprised that it is pointed out.

When did I ever claim to be fair and balanced? I have my issues of special interest just like everyone else. Just like you, in fact.

[Elind]

UN bashing can become an obsession. However, if you look for numbers from, say, US forces:

... we might just as well manufacture and market "mission accomplished" condoms. :rolleyes:

Could this possibly be a "human" problem rather than a UN, or US one? The issue is one of management and leadership, not anything more. Shall we bring business failings into it, or perhaps the Catholic church as well, and let's name the countries whose soldiers were guilty so we can call all their citizens degenerate too, just to keep the thread going longer?

[Mycroft]

Yes, I admitted that, and gave the reason why I posted in such a way anyhow: The UN bashing on this board. Pretty much like ''Clinton did so too' when the Bush-bashers go too far.

How am I going too far?

Oh yes, I know that US soldiers sexually assault civilians (which was my statement) in countries where they fight. I was just saying that I didn't have the time to search for articles right now. Do you think they don't?

I think in any group that numbers into the tens of thousands you will be able to find individual examples of any kind of reprehensible behavior. The issue, however, is if the problem is severe enough that it warrants special corrective action. It’s already been identified that in the case of the UN, that is true.

If you wanted to hold the US army as a standard of behavior and then argue that the UN problem is exaggerated because they are no worse than the US army, that would make a sort of sense, but in order to do that you would need to gather some information for comparison, which you haven’t done. Instead, you seem to be suggesting that if you’re able to find any example at all of sexual exploitation carried out by any member of the US forces that it would somehow negate any criticism of sexual exploitation by UN forces, and I strongly disagree with that. That would be nothing more than a tu quoque argument, and an illogical one at that.

No, I'm not saying that. However, people who are not - by their own account - fair and balanced, shouldn't be surprised that it is pointed out.

Are you claiming to be fair and balanced in the sense that KelvinG meant it? Because if you are, I’ll have a field day poring through your posts for every example where you talk on one issue but not another.

But you’re dodging the question. Do you think that any non-US agency can ever be criticized for anything? Or will you always try to divert attention away from it by finding something comparable within the US and making a tu quoque argument about it?

[Mycroft]

I only went back to WP itself to check the accuracy - my first quote was just one of many referring to WP. The numbers are the same.

Oh, I found the source of the snippet you quoted.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/mili-j10.shtml

World Socialist Web Site? I can understand your reluctance to come forward with a source like that.

:oldroll:

[Bjorn]

Oh, I found the source of the snippet you quoted.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/mili-j10.shtml

World Socialist Web Site? I can understand your reluctance to come forward with a source like that.

:oldroll:Come on, Mycroft, this is beneath you. WSWS came up first on the search, they quoted Washington Post and did so correctly. To be sure to avoid comments like yours, I posted the original in my next post. Let me know if you want me to post it again, or if Washington Post's article or the Army task force's report became less reliable after being quoted by others.

[The Fool]

Come on, Mycroft, this is beneath you. WSWS came up first on the search, they quoted Washington Post and did so correctly. To be sure to avoid comments like yours, I posted the original in my next post. Let me know if you want me to post it again, or if Washington Post's article or the Army task force's report became less reliable after being quoted by others.

Lol...Mycroft doesn't get as far as original sources. This article, for example, is simply his near daily reposting of whatever Charles is feeding to the minions on little green footballs.....Mycrofts self appointed task is to repost them here and add an offensive remark or two...

but he does post the original link otherwise his constant posting of just LGF articles may lead us to suspect he is just a web bot.

anyway...back to the troll feeding...

[Euromutt]

No, I think it's a topic that should get a lot of attention that creates pressure on the UN to reform its practices and put an end to this shame.The sneaky thing here is that the problem does not lies with the practices of the UN, in the sense of the Secretariat, and specifically of the DPKO. Kerberos is on the right track, in that the member states have reserved for themselves the right to impose and enforce military discipline on their own troops when those troops are deployed on UN operations. The DPKO doesn't discipline blue helmets, not because it doesn't want to, but because the member states will not allow it to. The DPKO having a "zero tolerance" policy doesn't make one iota of difference; if the offending soldier's national government isn't interested in disciplining him, he won't be disciplined, and there's not a damn thing DPKO can do about it.

The problem is that most non-Western nations don't regard contributing troops as a way to promote the greater good, but as an opportunity to make some hard currency. The UN pays the contributing member state a minimum of USD50 per soldier per day, depending on the mission (UN pay for UNPROFOR in Bosnia was $50/day, for UNTAC in Cambodia it was $150/day). Industrialized nations, like the Canadians, the Scandinavians, the British, etc. pay this money to the soldier (usually as a lump sum at the end of the deployment). Governments of countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kenya, Ukraine, etc. keep the money themselves. They don't care what their soldiers do on deployment (as long that they don't sell any equipment and/or supplies on the black market that belong to the government in question); they're only interested in raking in that UN pay. But with the industrialized nations increasingly reluctant to get involved in UN operations, the peacekeeper pimps are more and more often the only ones willing to provide troops.

[Kerberos]

From the article:



So we have within the article identified some specific problems and some specific solutions. I hope the UN is addressing the problem in more ways that just enforcing a ban on prostitution, but at least we know that's one positive thing they're doing.
I don't think "changing the culture of dismissiveness" counts as "specific". Leaving that aside, I also don't see what the UN can do about a culture of dismissiveness among the troops or mission areas, nor do I see how any such culture that might exist in the organization would affect the deployed troops.

As for strictly inforcing a ban on prostitution, I'm not really sure that removing sources of consentual sex is going to decrease the number of rapes. In any case the strict inforcement of such a ban is the province of the countries that supply the troops, not of the UN. I supose we could give the UN it's own army and/or it's own system for enfocing dicipline on the troops norminally under it's command, but somehow I don't think that you or the US would be all that thrilled with either of those notions.

So I'll repeat the question what specific UN procedures do you think are problematic and what specific reforms whould the UN be preasure to adopt?

[Mycroft]

So I'll repeat the question what specific UN procedures do you think are problematic and what specific reforms whould the UN be preasure to adopt?

Well, it seems that Euromutt's well informed post does suggest some obvious possibilities:

1) Either change the rules so that peace-keeping forces answer to an authority capable of enforcing rules against sexual exploitation of the locals, or...

2) Lean on the individual member nations who provide those troops to enforce the rules themselves. Also...

3) Reconsider UN policies and programs that seem little more than an excuse to transfer wealth from wealthy nations to poor nations. Is the soldier that's only there to provide a source of income for his government going to be an asset to the mission? It seems unlikely.

[Kerberos]

Well, it seems that Euromutt's well informed post does suggest some obvious possibilities:

1) Either change the rules so that peace-keeping forces answer to an authority capable of enforcing rules against sexual exploitation of the locals, or...
You mean an independent UN court system, I don't see the US going for that.

2) Lean on the individual member nations who provide those troops to enforce the rules themselves. Also...
Splendid idead, of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Un except through the fact that some of the countries that might be in a position to preasure the individual member nations (US, France and England for exampel) are also members of the security council.

3) Reconsider UN policies and programs that seem little more than an excuse to transfer wealth from wealthy nations to poor nations. Is the soldier that's only there to provide a source of income for his government going to be an asset to the mission? It seems unlikely.

The Un's policy and programs are the provinse of the security council that is to say it's determinded by the US, France, England, China and Russia. I'm constantly puzzled by the insistence from both proponents and opponents of the Un to treat it like an independent agency. That being said I don't see how mercenaries are ipso facto worthless. Soldiers from for example the US, Denmark or France would probably be better, but if western countries are either incabable or unwilling to supply the necessary troops that's not an option.

[ImaginalDisc]

The Washington Post article deals with sexual assault within the army. That is, soldier on soldier assault. The BBC article on the UN deals with sexual exploitation by UN soldiers of the very same native population they’re supposed to be protecting.

While I agree that the Washington Post article raises an issue worthy of attention, wouldn’t you agree it’s a different topic from the BBC article? Wouldn't you agree that sexual exploitation of the native population is different from sexual assault within a military organization?


While the distinction you make is valid, the subect is sex abuse my military personnel. Since information on the subect is sketchy at best, it's hardly inappropriate to bring us this particular statistic.

[Mycroft]

While the distinction you make is valid, the subect is sex abuse my military personnel. Since information on the subect is sketchy at best, it's hardly inappropriate to bring us this particular statistic.

Only if you hold the irrational belief that any criticism of a non-US entity can be negated by finding something to bash about a US entity. It’s a different topic, one who’s only purpose is to distract from discussion of the UN.

[ImaginalDisc]

Only if you hold the irrational belief that any criticism of a non-US entity can be negated by finding something to bash about a US entity. It’s a different topic, one who’s only purpose is to distract from discussion of the UN.

Such dishonesty ill becomes you. In asking the question, "Are UN peacekeepr sex abuses too high?", two questions must be answered first. A) Is any level acceptable? Of course not. B) Is the level of sex abuse by UN personnal high, compared to other military forces? Asking what the sex abuse rate is of US forces is relevant. Please do not attempt to dismiss honest inquiry are mere US bashing.

[Mycroft]

You mean an independent UN court system, I don't see the US going for that.

That could be one way of implementing the idea, but by no means the only way and certainly not what I meant.

I think if the US goes for an independent UN court system would depend on the jurisdiction of that court system. However, I think a UN code of military justice would fill the bill.


Splendid idead, of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Un except through the fact that some of the countries that might be in a position to preasure the individual member nations (US, France and England for exampel) are also members of the security council.

The UN operates by certain rules. Those rules can be changed. That can be done within the UN and is not entirely dependent on pressure from without.


The Un's policy and programs are the provinse of the security council that is to say it's determinded by the US, France, England, China and Russia. I'm constantly puzzled by the insistence from both proponents and opponents of the Un to treat it like an independent agency.

Because it is an independent agency. While the security council may be made up of the US, France, England, China and Russia, it is still a different entity from any of these nations.


That being said I don't see how mercenaries are ipso facto worthless.

Who said that? They’re not mercenaries if their government keeps the money.


Soldiers from for example the US, Denmark or France would probably be better, but if western countries are either incabable or unwilling to supply the necessary troops that's not an option.

So you’ve identified another area for reform.

[Mycroft]

Such dishonesty ill becomes you. In asking the question, "Are UN peacekeepr sex abuses too high?", two questions must be answered first. A) Is any level acceptable? Of course not.


I would disagree with that. As said previously, in any group numbering into the tens of thousands, you will be able to find individual examples of all kinds of reprehensible behavior. While any one example of sexual exploitation is intollerable, there does need to be a certain level of occurance before one would attribute it to a systemic problem with the UN.


B) Is the level of sex abuse by UN personnal high, compared to other military forces?

And if the reason he brought it up was to create a base-line for judgement, I would agree with you. I even said as much in a previous post.


Asking what the sex abuse rate is of US forces is relevant. Please do not attempt to dismiss honest inquiry are mere US bashing.

But we need to compare apples with apples, which this isn't.

[ImaginalDisc]

But we need to compare apples with apples, which this isn't.

In the sense that it's a comparison of one military force to another, it is. In the sense that it's comparing military abuses on civilians to military abuses against other military personnel, it isn't. Do you have any relevant data on US sexd abuses against civilians?

[Mycroft]

In the sense that it's a comparison of one military force to another, it is.

Okay, but comparing military forces on different topics is not good enough.


In the sense that it's comparing military abuses on civilians to military abuses against other military personnel, it isn't.

Agreed.

Do you have any relevant data on US sexd abuses against civilians?

Don't you think it should be up to Bjorn to provide that information? He's the one who raised the issue, not me. If he had found the relevant data and made the argument that sexual exploitation by UN forces is no worse than sexual exploitation by US forces, I wouldn't be claiming that he raised the issue merely as a distraction.

[ImaginalDisc]

Okay, but comparing military forces on different topics is not good enough.



Agreed.


Don't you think it should be up to Bjorn to provide that information? He's the one who raised the issue, not me. If he had found the relevant data and made the argument that sexual exploitation by UN forces is no worse than sexual exploitation by US forces, I wouldn't be claiming that he raised the issue merely as a distraction.

It's not just Bjorn's problem. You cannot make a case that UN sex abuses are "too high", when compared to other military forces, without comparing them to other forces.

[TragicMonkey]

It's not just Bjorn's problem. You cannot make a case that UN sex abuses are "too high", when compared to other military forces, without comparing them to other forces.


Although it sounds crazy to talk about "too high" in any such context, as it suggests there's an acceptable number of military sex abuses. (Well, zero is a number. The only one I find acceptable in this.)

[Mycroft]

It's not just Bjorn's problem. You cannot make a case that UN sex abuses are "too high", when compared to other military forces, without comparing them to other forces.


The case has already been made. This is not a new issue at all. The article in the OP is a follow-up stating that insufficient progress has been made in resolving the issue identified years ago.

If Bjorn (or you) want to claim the problem was incorrectly identified, then by all means you should. It's just not fair for you to place the burden for proving your argument on me. If you believe it to be true that the incidents of UN sexual exploitation to be no greater than what would be found in US forces, then it's up to you to demonstrate that.

[Bjorn]

If you believe it to be true that the incidents of UN sexual exploitation to be no greater than what would be found in US forces, then it's up to you to demonstrate that.We know that US forces are raping/sexually assualting each other, at least to the degree that we believe the Army Task Force and its report.

It seems to be little statistics/reliable reports available, at least online, on rape during war. If someone wants to interprete that as it's not happening, I have no evidence to the contrary. Let me just say that I find it probable that a soldier capable of raping another soldier would be just as likely to rape when at war. Me thinking so is, as I say, of course no evidence.

However, there are plenty of references to

- rape as a common occurence during wars

- rape in literature about the Vietnam war.

Many of the books or testimonies are written/quoted by authors who wouldn't be considered good sources here at JREF - professors in feminiology (if such a field exists) have their biases, some of them claiming that intercourse is rape in general and so on.

Others are written by soldiers who saw it happen and even participated. I have quoted a couple, they are quite typical for the genre.

Joe Galbally was in Vietnam for one year:

We entered a hootch. These people are aware of what American soldiers do to them so naturally they tried to hide the young girls. We found one hiding in a bomb shelter in sort of the basement of her house. She was taken out, raped by six or seven people in front of her family in front of us, and the villagers. This wasn't just one incident; this was just the first one I can remember. I know of 10 or 15 of such incidents at least. The gentleman on my left can corroborate my testimony because we were together the whole time; served in the same squad, the same company.From Mark Baker's Nam:

You take a group of men and put them in a place where there are no round-eyed women. They are in an all-male environment. Let's face it. Nature is nature. There are women available. Those women are of another culture, another color, another society. You don't want a prostitute. You've got an M-16. What do you need to pay for a lady for? You go down to the village and you take what you want.

[gtc]

Although it sounds crazy to talk about "too high" in any such context, as it suggests there's an acceptable number of military sex abuses. (Well, zero is a number. The only one I find acceptable in this.)

Too true, and that is why this is a humorous topic, to answer The ("Pops") Fool's first post.

[The Fool]

Too true, and that is why this is a humorous topic, to answer The ("Pops") Fool's first post.
sexual assault....absolutely hilarious.

[gtc]

sexual assault....absolutely hilarious.

Nope pops, the UN arguing that there is an acceptable level of sexual assault is humorous just like Kofi claiming the UN is impartial after standing in the UN HQ in front of a map showing a Palestine covering the entire area of Israel and Palestine.

Its called gallows humour.

[The Fool]

Nope pops, the UN arguing that there is an acceptable level of sexual assault is humorous just like Kofi claiming the UN is impartial after standing in the UN HQ in front of a map showing a Palestine covering the entire area of Israel and Palestine.

Its called gallows humour.

Where is this argument from the UN that there is an acceptable level of sexual assault?

[gtc]

Where is this argument from the UN that there is an acceptable level of sexual assault?

Look at the Headline and look at the quote in the article in the opening post.

"Allegations being lodged against UN peacekeeping personnel remain high and unacceptably so," he said.

It all suggests that there is some level of sexual assault that would satisfy the UN.

[Mycroft]

It all suggests that there is some level of sexual assault that would satisfy the UN.


I think that's an unfortunate choice of phrasing.

[Bjorn]

I bet most mayors/police chiefs/presidents in the US have said something like "the number of rapes/murders/crimes/shootings/drug addicts is unacceptably high". It all suggests that some level of rapes/murders/crimes/shootings/drug addicts would satisfy the mayor/police chief/president.

[Mycroft]

We know that US forces are raping/sexually assualting each other, at least to the degree that we believe the Army Task Force and its report.

What we don’t know is why we should discuss this in a thread about UN sexual exploitation.

You don’t seem to be arguing that whatever occurs within the US military should be a base-line to compare other militaries with, so help me understand why you think this is relevant here?

[gtc]

I think that's an unfortunate choice of phrasing.

Well, the UN peacekeepers seem to be pretty satisfied at the moment.

I think this just proves John Birmingham (http://www.smh.com.au/news/books/itll-be-all-right-on-the-night/2006/01/19/1137553703067.html)'s hypothesis.

The UN (the institute that embodies the highest of left wing ideals) lets its peace keepers get away with rape by allowing 'a culture of dismissiveness, long developed within ourselves, in our countries and in the mission areas.' to flourish.

Then it decides to do something about it. Does it decide to stamp it out? Oh no. Does it decide to say this is not acceptable and no person should ever be raped by someone sent by the International community to protect them. No. Do its spokespeople stand up and say 'We are still getting reports of rape, that is unacceptable'. Of course not. The UN merely decides to aim for mediocrity. There is apparently some level of rape that is tolerable, that is not 'too high'.

But of course it is not the UN that should be ashamed. No, it is us for finding the situation amusing.

[Bjorn]

What we don’t know is why we should discuss this in a thread about UN sexual exploitation.

You don’t seem to be arguing that whatever occurs within the US military should be a base-line to compare other militaries with, so help me understand why you think this is relevant here?You quoted an article about sexual assaults by UN forces, not because you are fair and balanced, but because you have special interests.

I think it is fair to compare UN troops' sexual assaults to the sexual assaults committed by US troops, even if my numbers were about rape and sexual assaults against their fellow soldiers - I find it reasonable to think that those who rape fellow soldiers would be capable of raping also when on a mission. Maybe you disagree.

Considering the stories from Vietnam (which you didn't comment on), or more widely stories from wars in general, I regard it as a sad fact that soldiers commit such crimes, and that UN is no more special than US in that regard. I would also guess that the American UN troops are raping as much as UN troops from other countries, but I could be wrong.

[The Fool]

Look at the Headline and look at the quote in the article in the opening post.

"Allegations being lodged against UN peacekeeping personnel remain high and unacceptably so," he said.

It all suggests that there is some level of sexual assault that would satisfy the UN.
Nope....does not follow.

I believe the current level of A is unacceptable.
This Means (downgraded to suggests) I believe there is an acceptable level of A that is not zero.

Show us how that follows....

I notice you have downgraded it from being called a Un argument to "it all suggests" its a UN argument...what will it be called next? How about "theoretically possible UN opinion that could just possibly be correct as long as you trust my opinions"?

and just to put this silly Idea to bed...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1700911,00.html

Jewish community leaders yesterday described the level of anti-semitism in Britain as unacceptably high

Does this suggest to you that Jewish community leaders in Britain believe that there is an acceptable level of anti-semitism.....maybe you could write to them and advise them what the acceptable level of anti-semitism is....

[Bjorn]

There is apparently some level of rape that is tolerable, that is not 'too high'.

But of course it is not the UN that should be ashamed. No, it is us for finding the situation amusing.20 seconds on google:

Missouri:

"In the Jackson County Buckner Elementary School neighborhood, citizens identified the lack of a community gathering place, youth crime, and enforcement of existing curfew laws as issues related to unacceptable crime rates in their community."

The POTUS:

"the American people do not have to tolerate unacceptable rates of crime"

There is apparently some level that is tolerable, that is not 'too high'.

But of course it is not the US that should be ashamed. No, it is us for finding the situation amusing.

[gtc]

I notice you have downgraded it from being called a Un argument to "it all suggests" its a UN argument...what will it be called next? How about "theoretically possible UN opinion that could just possibly be correct as long as you trust my opinions"?

Sorry, but I stand by my first post. I simply elaborated as you still did not get it.


and just to put this silly Idea to bed...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1700911,00.html

Jewish community leaders yesterday described the level of anti-semitism in Britain as unacceptably high

Does this suggest to you that Jewish community leaders in Britain believe that there is an acceptable level of anti-semitism.....maybe you could write to them and advise them what the acceptable level of anti-semitism is....

The key difference is that the Community Security Trust says that 'The CST ensures the safety and security of the Jewish community in Britain.' Notice the absolute, they are not saying that there is an acceptable level. Now show me something similar from the UN.

Also, feel free to find it humorous that the Jewish leaders find some anti-semitism acceptable. I won't stop you.

[Bjorn]

The key difference is that the Community Security Trust says that 'The CST ensures the safety and security of the Jewish community in Britain.' Notice the absolute, they are not saying that there is an acceptable level. Now show me something similar from the UN.

Also, feel free to find it humorous that the Jewish leaders find some anti-semitism acceptable. I won't stop you.Hehe. Can you repeat why

Jewish community leaders yesterday described the level of anti-semitism in Britain as unacceptably high

is different from

Allegations being lodged against UN peacekeeping personnel remain high and unacceptably so

?? :rolleyes:

Following your logic (which I don't follow), why are they saying that the level of anti-semitism is "unacceptably high" if they mean that the anti-semitism is unacceptable?

[gtc]

Maybe my previous post wasn't clear.

The CST is not simply saying that anti-semitism is too high, they are also saying elsewhere that it is unacceptable.

Now, may I ask why you read this article did you immediately try to change the topic to attack the US army and why did The Fool immediately change the topic to attack Mycroft.

Mycroft and I may have found the article humourous, but at least we are willing to condemn rape by peace keepers. The closest you have come is in post 18, where you say that you aren't saying that no problem at a non-US agency should ever be addressed.

[Mycroft]

You quoted an article about sexual assaults by UN forces, not because you are fair and balanced, but because you have special interests.

Special interest? What’s the “special interest” in wanting the UN to crack down on the sexual exploitation of the populations they’re supposed to protect?

I think it is fair to compare UN troops' sexual assaults to the sexual assaults committed by US troops, even if my numbers were about rape and sexual assaults against their fellow soldiers -

Except you’re not making a comparison.

A comparison would be providing information about how common the problem is with UN forces to how common it is with US forces. That’s not what you’re doing. What you seem to be doing is raising one issue purely as a distraction from the other issue.

I find it reasonable to think that those who rape fellow soldiers would be capable of raping also when on a mission. Maybe you disagree.

There is nothing to agree with, you haven’t provided any information except your own speculation. Would a soldier that would rape a fellow soldier also rape when out on a mission? Maybe, but have you established any basis for even guessing how common it is? Is there anything we can compare to the documented problem with UN troops sexually exploiting the population they’re supposed to protect?

No, all you’re doing is digging up mud to fling around, and old mud at that. The problems with the UN forces are in the papers today, and you want to bring up Vietnam era atrocities.

Considering the stories from Vietnam (which you didn't comment on), or more widely stories from wars in general, I regard it as a sad fact that soldiers commit such crimes, and that UN is no more special than US in that regard.

Is it your conclusion then that no pressure should be brought on the UN to reform its practices? Is it your conclusion that because there are stories about atrocities committed by US forces in Vietnam 40 years ago, that nobody can ever talk about wrongdoings by any armed forces ever again?

Honestly, I’m having difficulty with your logic.


I would also guess that the American UN troops are raping as much as UN troops from other countries, but I could be wrong.

That’s the point, you could be wrong. You have no data either way. This conclusion you’ve reached is entirely the product of your imagination. You think that because it could be true, that it’s okay for you to go ahead and assume it is true simply because it’s easy, it fits your prejudices, and it allows you to dismiss criticism of the UN.

What kind of skepticism is that?

[Bjorn]

Maybe my previous post wasn't clear.

The CST is not simply saying that anti-semitism is too high, they are also saying elsewhere that it is unacceptable.Elsewhere? Where? They are, in fact, saying exactly what I posted, it is "unacceptably high" (which is, as I understand it, pretty much the same as "high and unacceptably so"). This is the full text of the linked article:

Anti-semitism in UK 'unacceptably high'
Hugh Muir
Friday February 3, 2006
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

Jewish community leaders yesterday described the level of anti-semitism in Britain as unacceptably high as it emerged that the number of incidents last year was the second highest on record.

The Community Security Trust recorded 455 anti-semitic race hate incidents throughout the UK in 2005, continuing the rising trend since 1979 when 219 instances were reported. Although the 2005 figure was lower than the previous year, Mark Gardner, CST spokesman, said indicators of violent assaults and abusive behaviour were "remarkably consistent" with the record 2004 figures.Now, may I ask why you read this article did you immediately try to change the topic to attack the US armyI have discussed that in several posts above, and I was not "attacking the US army".

[PogoPedant]

I'll be making enemies left and right, but the term you're all needing to know is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARP). Essentially, there is a non-zero number of sexual assaults that must be considered acceptable, as there is no way to guarantee absolutely no sexual assaults while maintaining operations.

Does the bickering over the term unacceptable really add anything to the debate?

[Mycroft]

I'll be making enemies left and right, but the term you're all needing to know is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). Essentially, there is a non-zero number of sexual assaults that must be considered acceptable, as there is no way to guarantee absolutely no sexual assaults while maintaining operations.

Does the bickering over the term <i>unacceptable</i> really add anything to the debate?

Good post. :)

[gtc]

Elsewhere? Where?

I aplogised if my earlier post was unclear, and I apologise again.

They say this on their website (http://www.thecst.org.uk/). I meant to post the link, but must have overlooked it.

I have discussed that in several posts above, and I was not "attacking the US army".

I can't see how you weren't attacking the US Army, nor can I see where you have argued that rape by UN peacekeepers is anything to be concerned about.

Like I said there is your statement in #18 and an admission that you have posted a Tu Quoque argument, but that is all I can see.

[Bjorn]

Special interest? What’s the “special interest” in wanting the UN to crack down on the sexual exploitation of the populations they’re supposed to protect?I was referring to your own answer:

No, of course not. Your biases are well documented and it's obvious you'd much rather focus on the evil UN!!
But, nice try at appearing to be fair and balanced.
When did I ever claim to be fair and balanced? I have my issues of special interest just like everyone else.Except you’re not making a comparison.

A comparison would be providing information about how common the problem is with UN forces to how common it is with US forces. That’s not what you’re doing. What you seem to be doing is raising one issue purely as a distraction from the other issue.Of course I did - I provided numbers on rapes/sexual assaults within the US armed forces in training. If you have relevant numbers to add, do so.

I stated: I find it reasonable to think that those who rape fellow soldiers would be capable of raping also when on a mission. Maybe you disagree.

There is nothing to agree with, you haven’t provided any information except your own speculation. Would a soldier that would rape a fellow soldier also rape when out on a mission?Maybe I should have said: Maybe you don't find it reasonable?

No, all you’re doing is digging up mud to fling around, and old mud at that. The problems with the UN forces are in the papers today, and you want to bring up Vietnam era atrocities.It wasn't easy to find stories about war crimes without looking at former wars ... especially when the current one still has a human shredder that's unaccounted for.

By the way, are you dismissing the Vietnam stories as untrue, or just too old and not relevant to soldiers of today?

Is it your conclusion then that no pressure should be brought on the UN to reform its practices? Is it your conclusion that because there are stories about atrocities committed by US forces in Vietnam 40 years ago, that nobody can ever talk about wrongdoings by any armed forces ever again?No, my point is that bashing the UN should be based on something that the UN is doing which is not common with other troops.

I posted that "I would also guess that the American UN troops are raping as much as UN troops from other countries, but I could be wrong."

That’s the point, you could be wrong. You have no data either way. This conclusion you’ve reached is entirely the product of your imagination. You think that because it could be true, that it’s okay for you to go ahead and assume it is true simply because it’s easy, it fits your prejudices, and it allows you to dismiss criticism of the UN.

What kind of skepticism is that?The UN troops are from a lot of different countries, among them the US. My guess/assumption (which you for some reason label as my conclusion) is that rape averages out between troops from different countries according to their numbers in the corps. I have no reason to believe anything else - do you?

[Bjorn]

I'll be making enemies left and right, but the term you're all needing to know is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARP). Essentially, there is a non-zero number of sexual assaults that must be considered acceptable, as there is no way to guarantee absolutely no sexual assaults while maintaining operations.

Does the bickering over the term unacceptable really add anything to the debate?"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name".

Never mind, I'm sure they would differenciate between "unacceptably high" and "high and unacceptably so". :)

[Mycroft]

I was referring to your own answer:
Of course I did - I provided numbers on rapes/sexual assaults within the US armed forces in training. If you have relevant numbers to add, do so.

But that’s not a comparison because 1) It’s a different activity from what is discussed about the UN troops and 2) There are no similar numbers about the UN troops to compare with the numbers on the US troops.

I stated: I find it reasonable to think that those who rape fellow soldiers would be capable of raping also when on a mission. Maybe you disagree.

Maybe I should have said: Maybe you don't find it reasonable?

Either way its speculation substituted for fact. You’re still not providing a basis for comparison.

By the way, are you dismissing the Vietnam stories as untrue, or just too old and not relevant to soldiers of today?

Those are both excellent reasons for dismissing them, but I dismissed them because they were not comparable to the charges against the UN forces.

No, my point is that bashing the UN should be based on something that the UN is doing which is not common with other troops.

How common is this with other troops? You have not provided any numbers.

I posted that "I would also guess that the American UN troops are raping as much as UN troops from other countries, but I could be wrong."

If true, it should be dealt with. However, once again you are substituting speculation for fact.

[Bjorn]

I aplogised if my earlier post was unclear, and I apologise again.

They say this on their website (http://www.thecst.org.uk/). I meant to post the link, but must have overlooked it.The UN has a lot of that on their website too.

I can't see how you weren't attacking the US ArmyIf I post that "American politicians are not telling the truth" and you point out that neither are politicians in other countries, are you attacking those other countries or making the point that the US in nothing special in that regard?

[gtc]

The bottom line is this.

The UN let develop 'a culture of dismissiveness' of rape allegations. Now they come out with what I interpreted as a suggestion that some rape is acceptable. Now this may be accepted military doctrine or just a question of semantics, but I find it telling in light of the previous culture of dismissiveness.

On the other hand, posters try to dismiss my concern with cases where other people's statements can be interpretted in the same way. However, these people do not have a previous history of a culture of dismissiveness.

The ALARP article is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARP) by the way.

[Bjorn]

But that’s not a comparison because 1) It’s a different activity from what is discussed about the UN troops and 2) There are no similar numbers about the UN troops to compare with the numbers on the US troops.1. Raping locals and raping fellow soldiers are different activities?

2. We have the numbers from the UN and from the US troops inside the US. Comparison should be easy, if you ask me.

I find it reasonable to think that those who rape fellow soldiers would be capable of raping also when on a mission. Maybe you don't find it reasonable?

Either way its speculation substituted for fact. You’re still not providing a basis for comparison.I take it you don't find the "speculation" reasonable? Rapists go to war and ... quit, cold turkey?

Those are both excellent reasons for dismissing them, but I dismissed them because they were not comparable to the charges against the UN forces.Why?

How common is this with other troops? You have not provided any numbers.Yes I have, unless you don't accept sexual assaults by troops in the US as "numbers"?

The UN troops are from a lot of different countries, among them the US. My guess/assumption (which you for some reason label as my conclusion) is that rape averages out between troops from different countries according to their numbers in the corps. I have no reason to believe anything else - do you?

If true, it should be dealt with. However, once again you are substituting speculation for fact.I have no reason to believe anything else - do you?

[gtc]

If I post that "American politicians are not telling the truth" and you point out that neither are politicians in other countries, are you attacking those other countries or making the point that the US in nothing special in that regard?

I would argue both. You are definately trying to shift the argument away from the American politicians. It could be that you are trying to argue that our attention should be focussed on all politicians, not just Americans or you could be trying to mount a Two wrongs make a right (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html) type fallacy. It depends on your motive. I pesonally agree with Mycroft that on the basis of the post where you first mention the US you appear to be mounting a Two wrongs argument.

Now if you had said something like, 'this is a problem and not just with the UN'. Instead you mention UN bashing, which makes it sound like you have an agenda to defend the UN by attacking the US army. As the fallacyfiles show, that could be no real defense.

[The Fool]

Maybe my previous post wasn't clear.

The CST is not simply saying that anti-semitism is too high, they are also saying elsewhere that it is unacceptable.

Now, may I ask why you read this article did you immediately try to change the topic to attack the US army and why did The Fool immediately change the topic to attack Mycroft.

Mycroft and I may have found the article humourous, but at least we are willing to condemn rape by peace keepers. The closest you have come is in post 18, where you say that you aren't saying that no problem at a non-US agency should ever be addressed.

What leads you to the conclusion that Mycroft was at all interested in the victims of rape? That he bought the topic up?...well he didn't its just his near daily reposting of whatever he sees on little green footballs ...its just a trolling UN bash and was available this particular day on little green footballs.This article is just a repost with offensive humour added to stir up the *****. He doesn't even credit LGF.... there's gratitude for you....

Like his effort in finding birth deformities in a muslim baby funny....what was the topic of that thread? something along the lines of ...OMG! muslims turning into two headed monsters (or something just as classy)...hang around for a while and you will get the idea....I'm not sure if you are looking for a troll to hitch your horse to but there are better available than this LGF bot.

[Bjorn]

Instead you mention UN bashing, which makes it sound like someone has an agenda .. You're getting closer.

Bjorn, it is not correct to alter the wording when quoting another poster. Please refrain from doing that in the future. Below is the actual quote from gtc.Instead you mention UN bashing, which makes it sound like you have an agenda to defend the UN by attacking the US army.

[gtc]

What leads you to the conclusion that Mycroft was at all interested in the victims of rape? That he bought the topic up?...well he didn't its just his near daily reposting of whatever he sees on little green footballs ...its just a trolling UN bash and was available this particular day on little green footballs.This article is just a repost with offensive humour added to stir up the *****. He doesn't even credit LGF.... there's gratitude for you....

I hope you aren't saying that Mycroft could not have both seen it on LGF and been concerned for the victims of Rape. Perhaps you could let Mycroft answer that.

[gtc]

You're getting closer.

I you have changed my quote.

I suggest you get it changed back.

There is a line, I believe you have crossed it.

I will not report this, yet, but I find this unacceptable.

[Mycroft]

1. Raping locals and raping fellow soldiers are different activities?

Yes. While both are despicable, they are different. Is this even disputable?

2. We have the numbers from the UN and from the US troops inside the US. Comparison should be easy, if you ask me.

Great. Let’s stop wasting time and make the comparison.


I find it reasonable to think that those who rape fellow soldiers would be capable of raping also when on a mission. Maybe you don't find it reasonable?

I take it you don't find the "speculation" reasonable? Rapists go to war and ... quit, cold turkey?

Why?

Now you’re fabricating a straw-man out of this. It doesn’t matter if I find your speculation “reasonable” or not. It’s that it is speculation and not supported by any fact.


Yes I have, unless you don't accept sexual assaults by troops in the US as "numbers"?

If the goal is to make a comparison, then you need numbers on both groups, not just one.


I have no reason to believe anything else - do you?

I have no reason for accepting your speculation as fact without any evidence to back it up. Do you?

[Mycroft]

What leads you to the conclusion that Mycroft was at all interested in the victims of rape?

Right. I routinely raise issues that don’t interest me. :oldroll:


That he bought the topic up?...well he didn't its just his near daily reposting of whatever he sees on little green footballs ...its just a trolling UN bash and was available this particular day on little green footballs.

As far as I know, this story was not a topic on LGF. However, if it were, it’s because Charles, who runs LGF, has a similar political outlook to me. It’s quite possible, even probable that a story may appear on LGF and be an issue that concerns me.


This article is just a repost with offensive humour added to stir up the *****. He doesn't even credit LGF.... there's gratitude for you....

Like his effort in finding birth deformities in a muslim baby funny....what was the topic of that thread? something along the lines of ...OMG! muslims turning into two headed monsters (or something just as classy)...hang around for a while and you will get the idea....I'm not sure if you are looking for a troll to hitch your horse to but there are better available than this LGF bot.

Personal attacks noted and reported.

[Darat]

Please remember you should be addressing and, if you wish, attacking the arguments put forward not the Member.

[The Fool]

Please remember you should be addressing and, if you wish, attacking the arguments put forward not the Member.

sure, no problems...

The arguments put forward by mycroft in the OP of this thread are...

I think a great investment idea would be to manufacture and market "blue helmet" condoms. They could be the same colour blue as is the UN flag, and the foil wrapping could be that same UN blue/white, maybe even with the UN logo.

Yeah, I know. Critics might say that real UN peacekeepers don't use condoms when they sexually exploit the local population, but maybe if these catch on, they will.


Maybe someone can help me here but I really cannot find much to discuss...
Maybe I could ask mycroft on what basis he believes blue condoms would be a great marketing idea?

Maybe I could ask him to provide a link to where he gets his information on the rate of condom use among rapists in military units on UN assignment.

So thats what I will do..

Mycroft. On what basis do you conclude Blue condoms would be a great investment Idea. What sort of money would I have to invest to see a return greater that the current inflation rate?

Do you have a link to where you source your information on the rate of condom use among Rapists in military units on UN assignment.

[Mycroft]

Maybe I could ask mycroft on what basis he believes blue condoms would be a great marketing idea?

Honestly, I think it would be a terrible money-making idea. However, it might be a great idea for getting attention to this shameful scandal with the UN and increasing public pressure for reform.

[gtc]

Maybe someone can help me here but I really cannot find much to discuss...
Maybe I could ask mycroft on what basis he believes blue condoms would be a great marketing idea?

Maybe I could ask him to provide a link to where he gets his information on the rate of condom use among rapists in military units on UN assignment.

So thats what I will do..

Mycroft. On what basis do you conclude Blue condoms would be a great investment Idea. What sort of money would I have to invest to see a return greater that the current inflation rate?

Do you have a link to where you source your information on the rate of condom use among Rapists in military units on UN assignment.

Are you saying they aren't a good investment? In Mardi Gras week? They'd sell like hot cakes.

[a_unique_person]

Please remember you should be addressing and, if you wish, attacking the arguments put forward not the Member.

Every post Myrcoft makes is a dishonest attack on me.

[The Fool]

Are you saying they aren't a good investment? In Mardi Gras week? They'd sell like hot cakes.
Dammit gtc you may have a point there...tell you what. PM me your bank account details and I'll forward half the profits...honest!

I'll even give you half the 16 million I'm getting of that nice Nigerian prince.

[David Swidler]

Dammit gtc you may have a point there...tell you what. PM me your bank account details and I'll forward half the profits...honest!

I'll even give you half the 16 million I'm getting of that nice Nigerian prince.

Bah. 16 million? He offered me 21 million.

[a_unique_person]

I doubt he's got any money left, I have the $20 million sitting in my bank account right now.