Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I hate to say this Ty, but it's starting to sound like you are ... not quite defending, but not fully comfortable condemning UN soldiers who abuse their power by withholding food from starving people unless they get sex in return.
The conduct in question is reprehensible.
It will not get the press that the US conduct at Abu Ghraib got. That is not because of the "liberal media" (probably the dumbest phrase the right wing has ever cooked up). It is for three very simple reasons:
1. There are no photographs or videotapes.
2. The UN operation in question in general attracts perhaps 1% of the public attention that the occupation of Iraq does, for very obvious reasons.
3. The actions of the UN soldiers in seeking sex from certain women appears like the opportunistic actions of individuals, whereas the conduct of US soldiers at Abu Ghraib has indicia of being pursuant to policies and orders (unless, of course, we believe that the fact that prisoners were tortured at the one unit of the one prison where the most "high-intelligence value" prisoners were sent is just a big coinky-dink).
|
I'm not the libertarian here. The article describes run-of-the-mill prostitution, except that (1) the prostitutes are in exceptionally horrid circumstances, and (2) the johns are UN peacekeepers. Since I know that club is libertarian enough to think that prostitution should generally be legal, I couldn't figure out what principle bothered him here, other than (a) the UN should be cast in a bad light. After copious posting, I discern that he thinks that prostitution is generally OK except when the prostitutes are really poor, in which case they should not be allowed to prostitute themselves for food. Since he's not willing to give the UN any more money to do anything about the lousy conditions these people find themselves in, unless and until the NEA is defunded, he apparently thinks that really poor prostitutes should have the good taste to crawl off and die, unless they can embarrass the UN some more by continuing to live.
It's obvious to me that the soldiers are guilty of inhumanity, and that the international community can and should do more to alleviate the conditions of these refugees. We all agree on the first point, but the conservatives here are usually opposed to the second point, for fearing of interfering with market forces.
I still can't tell what this has to do with Abu Ghraib, and club hasn't been able to find any discussion of U.S. soldiers taking advantage of Iraqi prostitutes so he's sort of dropped the "double standard" point.
