Re: [GZG] Interesting mercenary idea

On Dec 11, 2008, at 12:00 PM, emu2020@comcast.net wrote:

> I thank everyone who contributed to this discussion. It is nice to  
> have sparked a discussion that went someplace. I will not thank  
> John for being less abusive/abrasive than he normally is. I did not  
> ask for opinion on real world UN failings and what he offered could  
> have been phrased in a manner that was much less volatile,  
> regardless of what his personal experience has been. I do not think  
> that one's personal experiences or the fact that one feels slighted  
> or wronged gives them permission to disregard the basic tenants of  
> polite conversation and mutual discussion.
>

I gotta ask, are you in the UN? Are you a UN peace keeper? Why do you  
feel personally insulted? Because when I review what John said, he  
wasn't abusing you, he wasn't abusing anyone on the list. He was  
stating plain facts. Are plain facts volatile?

FACT, the UN Peace keeping missions have a serious record of  
partaking and encouraging the slave sex trade. Would you prefer they  
be called Comfort women? Is that less abrasive?

FACT, the ROEs have in past events, forced peace keepers of arguably  
of a higher quality to sit and observe and do nothing else while they  
watched one group murder another group, en masses.  This has happened  
in multiple locations. What less inflammatory language would you  
suggest to describe this?

FACT, third world nations that provide UN Peacekeeping troops do so  
because they get hard currency for doing so. Sometimes they cut  
corners on the quality and training of the troops in question.	
Sometimes they cut corners in the quality of leadership too.

If these facts distress you, write your legislator and complain.  
Don't get mad at John A for pointing uncomfortable facts out.

> There was a lot of good information given out by those who actually  
> wanted to contribute something useful to the discussion but, sadly,  
> reading through it was tainted by John's lack of self-control and  
> then the following defense it.
>

Plain facts aren't useful? Going forwards, the UNSC would have to (or  
perhaps it has not) have fixed these issues else it will continue to  
be a poor choice in the realm of military forces. As TomB mentions,  
it would also have to have territory so it's not begging for forces  
from member nations. OR paying for said forces and getting crappy  
troops.

We're playing a game that's supposed to reflect realities of complex  
political issues overlaid atop current or near current and past  
political/military history. If you don't like that, go play the game  
that has the dystopic future with a god emperor and space orcs.

>
> P.S. John, you mentioned that one contributer should read for  
> comprehension, not with his emotions. Perhaps it would do you some  
> good to write for information, not with your emotions.

If you don't want to get into a flame war with John, don't toss  
insults back when you're complaining about being insulted. 

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l