Callout RuHo

[ViriiK]

RuHo refuses to answer his callout..
The loser reduces himself to ad-hominems to try and avoid this callout
In response to your pathetic post

Originally Posted by RuHo

No. You have numerous times, posted about Dallaire and basically what you do is blame a grey because of that critique, when he especially states not only did the UN fail, but the countries in the UN that actually have influence. He specifically states, numerous times, numerous interviews, that this is what happened. You are here making a laughsingstock out of yourself crying here that the UN failed and all those people died, when you do not even have the comprehension skills to realise what exactly caused it. No, it wasnt a grey bearded mean ass making that decision on behalf of himself

dumbfuck

1. You got the Sex Scandals that has been plaguing the United Nations because their Blue Helmets have been raping people they have been protecting under Kofi Annan's watch.
2. The Oil-For-Food Scandal which Kofi Annan's office withheld documents on anything relating to the program concerning Sevan who was the director. That's also including allowing his staff to shred all critical documents

"she requested in writing Mr. Riza's permission for her to "shred" the following files: "Chronological files for the year 1997, 1998, and 1999 - Office of the Chef de Cabinet." A handwritten note from Mr. Riza on the memorandum states: "Fine. Thanks. (A heavy task!)" The note was initialed by Mr. Riza and dated the same day.234

3. Members that sit on councils that are a joke such as Zimbabwe (Dictatorship), Libya (Dictatorship), etc on the Human Rights Council, Iraq. Including allowing a dictatorship (Syria) onto the Security Council in 2004 when in fact Chapter VII Resolution 1559 were being employed against it. However other programs such as UNICEF (Except for defining the rights of a child under parents) and UNHA are successful. Another thing on that the United Nations recognize Theocracy or Dictatorships to be on their councils which other organizations such as OAS, ASEAN, etc do not allow.
4. Refugee Camps they have set up all over the world are not protected to the fullest extent because the United Nations cannot pursue for those that have attacked Refugee Camps which have killed hundreds if not thousands.
5. Refusal to allow UN Troops from agressively pursuing the people responsible for the Rwandan Genocide according to Dallaire's testimony which orders were to terminate and cease all actions and wait for new orders.

I woke up and this cable came in, signed by Kofi Annan in his normal staff responsibilities that essentially said cease and desist. Conduct no such operations. It's out of your mandate. On top of that, in the proper process of a Chapter VI, you will inform the ex-belligerent of the shortcomings that we notice and make it quite clear that he's got to rectify these shortcomings within a very short time frame, or else we will be in a position to have to review the mission, and ultimately their commitment to the peace agreement.
-Dallaire
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../dallaire.html

January 11 : Dallaire sent a cable to the Military Adviser to the Secretary-General at Headquarters, Major-General J. Maurice Baril, informing that a Hutu informant, a top level trainer in the cadre of Interahamwe (the largest and most deadly Hutu militia who were recruited from the youth wing of the President's party, Mouvement Revolutionnaire National pour le Developpement, MRND), had told him that Interahamwe were registering all Tutsi in Kigali and planning to exterminate them. The informant also said that a number of Belgian soldiers were to be killed in order to guarantee Belgian withdrawal from Rwanda. In this cable, Dallaire said he intended to take action to raid the extremists' arms cache.

The first response from Headquarters to UNAMIR was sent on the evening of 10 January New York time. It was a code cable from the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Mr Kofi Annan (which was signed off by Assistant Secretary-General for DPKO, Mr Iqbal Riza), to Booh Booh. In this cable, Annan requested Booh Booh's considered assessment and recommendations, but said "No reconnaissance or other action, including response to request for protection, should be taken by UNAMIR until clear guidance is received from Headquarters."

April 7 : 10 UNAMIR Belgian peacekeepers, who were assigned to protect her, were tortured and murdered.

April 12 : The Secretary-General had a meeting with the Belgian Foreign Minister, Claes, in Bonn. In this meeting, Claes recommended the withdrawal of UNAMIR from Rwanda, informing the Secretary-General of the Belgian decision to withdraw its units from Rwanda.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adampost/Archive/RR/rr_006.htm
6. You're quick to blame the United States for the entire failure in Rwanda when in fact the protector country, Belgium, which had colonial powers over of were getting backlashes from their home country and started the call to pull out their committments to Rwanda by putting it to vote.
7. France was supplying the militias that were responsible for slaughtering the population and there are no oversights in the United Nations in the Security Council from happening.

France has consistently supported President Habyarimana over the years and continued this policy during 1993 despite evidence of human rights abuses by his regime. Just after the beginning of the war in 1990, France sent a contingent of troops "to protect French citizens and other expatriates" in Rwanda. After the RPF violated the cease-fire in February, France sent an additional 300 soldiers, some of whom actively supported Rwandan troops in the combat zones. Some of the French troops were withdrawn after the March cease-fire, but others remained in Rwanda, in violation of accords which called for the departure of all foreign troops. France supplied Rwanda with arms and with political and propaganda support within the European Community.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/WR94/Africa-06.htm

8. Refusal to allow refugees to return to their host countries because they did not see it "safe" for the rebuilding of their countries even though the governments they escaped from are not in existance anymore. Which millions returned home to Iraq and Afghanistan which went home in record numbers..
9. The United Nations pushing their ICC views onto the United States which trials at the ICC “would deny Americans the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. An ICC ‘trial’ would be decided by a panel of six or more judges, no more than one of which could be an American”. The 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC contains no right to habeas corpus (But dipshits like you cry foul to "The Patriot Act doesn't provide any rights to habeas corpus" but turn a blind eye to this flaw in the ICC.. This global Kangaroo court could potentially be granted jurisdiction to try Americans under its house and suspend their rights to constitutionally protected guarantees to a fair trial and due process. Although originally intended as a way of resolving conflicts between states, the ICC has dipped its hands into the sovereignty of the American legal system. Of course the oversteps of the United Nations into the sovereignty of all nations continues into the realm of reproduction and child birth.
10. The United Nation’s plans to undermine national sovereignty were made abundantly clear through their use of language relating to children’s perceived rights under international law. First lets examine article 14 section 2, “States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” Contrast this with article 15 section 1, "States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly" With this in mind, if my child decided one day to convert to Satanism or witchcraft, would I be obligated to let them pursue that course of action? Would my rights as a parent supersede those of the child? How is a parent supposed to weigh these conflicting interests? Furthermore, article 37 states, “No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily...” Would I need to request a formal hearing for grounding my children? Well according to article 37 section d, “Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.” Looking at this from an average citizen’s perspective, one can see what the concern would be for depriving a child of his liberties. Things like monitoring behavior, ensuring school attendance, providing for the general health, and teaching morality suddenly becomes a legal issue. Therefore, could a child seek legal council if you “forced” him to go to school everyday, or would he present a better case if he argues that forcing him to attend weekly church service violates his guarantee of religious freedoms?
11. In the liberation of Iraq, the United Nations clearly demonstrated that the United Nations goals were polar opposite those of the United States, and their failure to act in a timely fashion validated our actions.
12. Other branches of the United Nations such as United Nations Population Fund have directly supported "Forced Abortions" around the globe, most of all in China with their 1-child law which upsetted the United States which Stephen Mosher documented in his first hand accounts, “The Chinese government claims that the guiding principle of the abortion program is voluntarism,' but there was nothing voluntary about the process I observed when living in a Chinese village... It involved subjecting pregnant women, many very close to term, to exhausting morning-to-night 'study sessions,' levying heavy penalties on them and their families, and the actual incarceration of those who still proved recalcitrant. Nor does the description 'voluntary' adequately encompass the reports that have come out of China since then of pregnant women being handcuffed, thrown into hog cages and taken to operating tables of rural clinics”. When the Bush administration pulled funding to these program after similar testimony before congress on the matter, Kofi Annan cried foul claiming they “"do not go around encouraging abortions". At any rate the United States only contributed 12% of the funds budget, and the money instead was sent to other organizations overseen by the United States
13. You argued that the United States was responsible for the Genocide when in fact the United States had no presence in Rwanda before or after the genocide..
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co...on/unamirF.htm

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe

The United States did its job in Somalia and tried hard with it. However the public with its BBS kicked in. Just like Belgium with their 10 soldiers that were killed in Rwanda which forced Belgium to call for a resolution to pull troops out of Rwanda. The only kind of involvement the United States had was diplomacy both on the Security Council and in Kilagi doing diplomacy with the Prime Minister before the Prime Minister was assassinated on April 7th, 1994. Which several days later the genocide started in Rwanda.
14. Lax of properly trained troops as explained below
As obvious as it sounds, well-trained and well-equipped troops are even more necessary for enforcement actions than for traditional peacekeeping. Sending poorly trained Bangladeshi troops to UNPROFOR, with inappropriate or no gear, was obviously misguided. At the same time, even the better-equipped Dutch were inappropriately deployed and supported when Srebrenica was overrun.
When Major General Romeo Dallaire requested 5,000 soldiers to help halt the genocide in Rwanda, he was not calling for seven different battalions from Bangladesh, The Netherlands, and five other countries. Setting aside for a moment the debate about the exact numbers that would have been required to make a difference, what he sought was a well-trained and well-equipped brigade. This raises the question of whether the military requirements for certain enforcement tasks would not be more readily available and reliable with a large military deployment by essentially a single state, rather than a multinational coalition. Although the approach would be potentially more open to abuse, there are cases that undoubtedly support this position, including India in East Pakistan, Tanzania in Uganda, and Vietnam in Cambodia during the 1970s; and the US in Haiti, the French in Rwanda, and the United Kingdom (UK) in Sierra Leone during the 1990s.
At the very least, it means that a multinational unit of this size should have had the kind of discipline, interoperability of first-rate equipment, and communications and transport capabilities that are now only available in NATO. Given the reductions in Western militaries since the end of the Cold War in most countries, the entire range of blue- to green-helmeted capacities necessary in April 1994 are not widely available now. Furthermore, the reluctance to sustain fatalities in humanitarian interventions complicated matters. Domestic spending priorities, the general expansion of peace operations, and the debacle in Somalia led to paralysis in the face of Rwanda's bloodshed in 1994.
The contributions of UN peacekeepers from the South have increased markedly as numbers from traditional Western troop-contributing countries have fallen. Although it is a politically sensitive subject, it is generally accepted that the effectiveness of troops from developing countries will need to be markedly improved if they are to play a prominent role in successful enforcement missions. Progress on this front is being made. There are also a number of initiatives to improve capacity, including the US effort to equip and train the African Crisis Response Initiative, the French Reinforcement of Capabilities of African Missions of Peacekeeping, and the British Military Advisory and Training Teams.
[T]he Secretary-General finds himself in an untenable position. He is given a Security Council resolution specifying troop levels on paper, but without knowing whether he will be given the troops to put on the ground. The troops that eventually arrive in theatre may still be underequipped: Some countries have provided soldiers without rifles, or with rifles but no helmets, or with helmets but no flak jackets, or with no organic transport capability (trucks or troops carriers). Troops may be untrained in peacekeeping operations, and in any case the various contingents in an operation are unlikely to have trained or worked together before. Some units may have no personnel who can speak the mission language. Even if language is not a problem, they may lack common operating procedures and have differing interpretations of key elements of command and control and of the mission's rules of engagement, and may have differing expectations about mission requirements for the use of force. This must stop.27
Not only do troops need to be well trained and well equipped, they also need to be in place quickly. The need for rapid deployment was central to the debate within the UN in the middle of the 1990s. Canada took a lead in discussions, arguing that the "critical lesson of the Rwandan experience is that modest but timely measures can make the difference between a situation which is stable or contained and one which spirals out of control."28 Other like-minded governments joined the chorus - Denmark, The Netherlands, and Sweden also issued reports about the necessity for the UN to be in a position to have a speedy capacity to execute interventions.
Little concrete headway has been made since. A Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters was established at UN headquarters, but at the same time DPKO was stripped of gratis military personnel from Western countries as a result of a disagreement with developing countries over the geographical balance of military staff in New York. In the end, some would argue that DPKO is less capable now than it was some years ago.
At the same time, the standard by which rapid deployment is measured has itself deteriorated. The earliest UN operations deployed far more rapidly than contemporary ones. In the Congo, there was a mutiny against Belgian officers on July 5, 1960; and five days later, Belgium intervened to protect its nationals. The Security Council met on July 14, and the first contingents of UN troops arrived the next day; 3,500 UN troops were on the ground by July 17. Similarly for the Suez crisis, offers of assistance had been received before a General Assembly Special Session had actually mandated the peacekeeping force; the first troops were on the ground in 8 days, having been delayed somewhat by Egyptian concerns about the nature and composition of the force. Within 3 weeks, more than 2,500 UN troops were in place; and in 10 weeks, the force had reached its full strength of 6,000 troops drawn from 10 countries.29
In contrast, an assessment by the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict claimed a two-week "window of opportunity" existed in mid-April, during which time a preventive deployment could have been successful in halting Rwanda's genocide.30 However, the most detailed estimate, to date, about the time necessary for even a US unilateral effort in Rwanda was more than a month.31
http://www.iciss.ca/03_Section_C-en.asp

Look you fucking loser.. I want a straight up answer.. If you're going to reduce yourself to pathetic lameass insults as you've been doing the entire thread.. You've lost..

No fucking Bullshit.. No avoiding the question.. Straight up.. You claim the United States is responsible for the Genocide which I've pointed out repeatedly that Belgium was in charge of the Peacekeeping Process as it was their trust colony they were responsible for.

So far you've been acting so fucking pathetic you need to throw insults to avoid the damn question. It's not going to work this time. Answer your callout..

RuHo refuses to answer his callout..
The loser reduces himself to ad-hominems to try and avoid this callout

[möbiustrip]

shut up

[ViriiK]

mobiusstrip.. Is this your callout thread? Why are you defending your fuckbuddy?

Your fuckbuddy has repeatedly thrown insults at me and avoided the questions directed at him by throwing ad-hominems at me..

Meanwhile there are rules concerning images that are intrusive.

[Straw Man]

it wasnt enough for you to copypaste that 10 times in the other thread, you just beg for more and no one is even disagreeing with your main point. Look I am real sorry I raped you (well, technically you raped yourself so I guess you deserve some credit). Wipe those tears now and just be a brave little soldier? Its funny, you still cannot admit it

PS. I told you you would make one of these threads

[möbiustrip]

there are also rules about flooding the same post ten times because you want attention

[ViriiK]

Originally Posted by RuHo

it wasnt enough for you to copypaste that 10 times in the other thread, you just beg for more and no one is even disagreeing with your main point. Look I am real sorry I raped you (well, technically you raped yourself so I guess you deserve some credit). Wipe those tears now and just be a brave little soldier? Its funny, you still cannot admit it

PS. I told you you would make one of these threads

So you're not going to answer it.. By reducing yourself to ad-homienms, you've become truely pathetic. So I guess by default I win..

[Straw Man]

Originally Posted by ViriiK

So you're not going to answer it.. So I guess by default I win..

Nah man, you got raped. Its in the thread, your super war hero Dallaire said it himself, and you still cannot man up
Thats sad

[ViriiK]

Originally Posted by RuHo

Nah man, you got raped. Its in the thread, your super war hero Dallaire said it himself, and you still cannot man up
Thats sad

End of conversation, RuHo refuses to answer his callout..
The loser reduces himself to ad-hominems to avoid this callout

[Straw Man]

Unlike you, I refuse to copypaste the same fucking issue all over again. The thing is, yours is not relevant. You keep posting some fucking shit about chinese abortion policies, which is besides the point, and has nothing to do with anything because no one has disagreed with you in that the UN is not flawless by any means. You however, just blatantly ignore what your precious war hero Dallaire said because it raped you hard, and you know it. Keep dodging bitch, there is no amount of copypaste and big fonts that will make you look anything worthwhile.

http://www.rapecrisiscenter.com

[ViriiK]

Originally Posted by RuHo

Unlike you, I refuse to copypaste the same fucking issue all over again. The thing is, yours is not relevant. You keep posting some fucking shit about chinese abortion policies, which is besides the point, and has nothing to do with anything because no one has disagreed with you in that the UN is not flawless by any means. You however, just blatantly ignore what your precious war hero Dallaire said because it raped you hard, and you know it. Keep dodging bitch, there is no amount of copypaste and big fonts that will make you look anything worthwhile.

http://www.rapecrisiscenter.com

I'm sorry, what's that? It's the sound of RuHo losing the callout..

[Straw Man]

Also, way to host a thread, talk shit, then start dodging like a little slut with your fonts and big letters. END OF CONVERSATION LAWL ILL JUST POST HERE STILL BECAUSE IM A GAY BITCH THAT GOT IT UP THE POOPER

[Straw Man]

Originally Posted by ViriiK

I'm sorry, what's that? It's the sound of RuHo losing the callout..

Its the sound of your anal lips flapping when I insert my penis into it for the Nth time

[ViriiK]

Originally Posted by RuHo

Its the sound of your anal lips flapping when I insert my penis into it for the Nth time

C. Callout threads.

1. Title MUST be "Callout: <person's name>

2. "You suck" is not a valid callout. If you've got a good reason to call someone out, share it with the class.

3. Provide links and/or quotes relating to the callout.

4. You do not decide who wins the callout. the Pit does.

5. If the person being called out does not show, they lose the callout. As if that matters.

You've refused to answer my callout on you because you're scared..

[ViriiK]

Originally Posted by RuHo

Also, way to host a thread, talk shit, then start dodging like a little slut with your fonts and big letters. END OF CONVERSATION LAWL ILL JUST POST HERE STILL BECAUSE IM A GAY BITCH THAT GOT IT UP THE POOPER

Again I've posted a valid thread and you just refused to answer it.. In the morning when PopeKevinI is on.. He'll decide as the rest of the community about you..

[Straw Man]

Originally Posted by ViriiK

C. Callout threads.

1. Title MUST be "Callout: <person's name>

2. "You suck" is not a valid callout. If you've got a good reason to call someone out, share it with the class.

3. Provide links and/or quotes relating to the callout.

4. You do not decide who wins the callout. the Pit does.

5. If the person being called out does not show, they lose the callout. As if that matters.

Hahah fuck you and your callouts you fucking bitch, you dodged the point in the thread for a day now, and now you apparently host this thread so that you might get one of your neocon fuckbuddies to flame me. You got fucking raped, you know it, and the more you keep dodging what was said in the other thread, the more it shows