Congo's Desperate 'One-Dollar U.N. Girls'

geez people, lighten up, will ya? Ya ever wonder how far that dollar might go out there?

Originally posted by spliff4020
geez people, lighten up, will ya? Ya ever wonder how far that dollar might go out there?

...Would you prefer me to make a comment about your family?...

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by steggyD
Maybe the Dr is saying that the UN is a bad idea because of that reason...

Even if the UN is not a country, it is obviously an institution.

So you dont believe in these?

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Last time I checked there was never a world war since WW2...tell me has there been?
If so then it has been a sucess...

I didn't say I believe one way or another, I was only pointing out what the Dr was trying to say. But I would have to say, there was a period of time between world war 1 and 2. So, obviously there will be some time before the next one, which is probably not too far away. Just like any institution, it means well in the beginning, but the basic needs of mankind will bring fault to it. And when and if there is finally a world war 3, will you blame the UN for failing, or will you blame something else?

Excuse me but reality strike but historically prostitution is the oldest business for women that other wise will starve to death.

So he just made a joke, regardless of what you want to be outrage at.

Blame it on the governments of the world, including US, because we still have the ladies of the night in our own streets and they are young too.
So, stop been so wounded about a comment, lest blame the really guilty parties here.

Originally posted by steggyD
I didn't say I believe one way or another, I was only pointing out what the Dr was trying to say.

Your pointing out that the UN is useless and if you believe in what I listed then your beliefs lie on the same side as the UN...

But I would have to say, there was a period of time between world war 1 and 2. So, obviously there will be some time before the next one, which is probably not too far away.

That was because the countries where imobilised and couldnt fight....They have been ready since 1960....

Just like any institution, it means well in the beginning, but the basic needs of mankind will bring fault to it. And when and if there is finally a world war 3, will you blame the UN for failing, or will you blame something else?

Yes, and faults can be corrected...
There wont be a WW3 because there are people out there ready to stop a thing from happening at great costs to themselves.
If one did happen I would only blame the UN IF they could stop it...if not then no...if I thought otherwise then I would blame the league of nations....

Originally posted by marg6043
Excuse me but reality strike but historically prostitution is the oldest business for women that other wise will starve to death.

So he just made a joke, regardless of what you want to be outrage at.

Blame it on the governments of the world, including US, because we still have the ladies of the night in our own streets and they are young too.
So, stop been so wounded about a comment, lest blame the really guilty parties here.

An offensive joke about someone who obviosly cant defend themselves..

I actually dont blame anyone in that situation...the gov cant stop it or control it...


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by devilwasp

I actually dont blame anyone in that situation...the gov cant stop it or control it...
[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Yes they can make life better for these women, but they are relegated to third places citizens in most of those countries.

And then I have to agree with you in a way that yes they may be able to control it but not stop it.

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes they can make life better for these women, but they are relegated to third places citizens in most of those countries.

How do you decide who deserves what who doesnt?
How do you change a social policy that has been in force for centuries...

And then I have to agree with you in a way that yes they may be able to control it but not stop it.

They can only slightly control it but not totaly....

Originally posted by devilwasp

How do you decide who deserves what who doesn't?
How do you change a social policy that has been in force for centuries...

I never said I did................. on the first sentence, on the second one funny I though US gives the impression that can change the world and bring freedom to other countries, but we all know is a lie you are right we can not change centuries of believes.

But then again we have a thread that is telling you how evil is the UN for taking advantage of a "century old business"

They can only slightly control it but not totaly....

And like i said it can be control but not be stop, and then remember the old business is practice in US too..................

What bothers me with this picture is:

Humanitarian crises: Congo worst

And STILL after all that suffering these women have to go thru this?

I saw a documentary where there was a very similar situation. In Tanzania there is an airport, where lots of foreign pilots come and go; they are ofcourse favorite target of local prostitutes. And one of those prostitutes was killed during the making of the docomentary. Strangled by a customer. Probably a western pilot. Nobody knows who did it. Nobody cares. Just like about this girl and thousands others that are selling their body. Not to mention the ENORMOUS problem of AIDS when talking about prostitution in Africa. War worse than anywhere in the World. Life has very little value in that place of the world.

Originally posted by Souljah
White Man always came here to take and not to give.

The West gives billions in aid to Africa all the time.

The West boycotted South Africa and ended apartied. It wasn't
the Africans who did it alone. It wouldn't have ended except that
the West saw the error of apartied and even though it hurt
Western business'... we all boycotted and wrote letters and
protested ...

America sends Peace Corps volunteers to build,
teach, and generally help. My next door neighbor went to
Africa to do this. He learned the native language. He ate
their food. He was supposed to be teaching them how to
dig a well, but the village people refused to help and my
neighbor ended up putting the well in himself, which of course
the villagers used as soon as he was done. He also contracted
diseases over there (MANY Peace Corps volunteers do) .. he had
parasites eating his arm and his health suffered greatly, but he
still volunteered and helped for two years, even though his helping
and making a well for the locals went unappreciated. He didn't do
it for appreciation of course, but it still would have been nice if
one of them at least said 'thanks for giving up 2 years of your life
and risking your health for us here in Africa'.

Mother Teresa's order from India has MANY MANY nuns, who
come from all over the world, who live amongst the Africans
teaching, doctoring, and generally helping.

There is more going on but you get the idea.

White Man took the natural resources.

If you mean overhunting Africa. Sure. It's a shame. But
Africans are guilty of that as well. AND it's Westerners
who are spearheading the programs to save the wildlife
in Africa.

White Man took slaves and imported them to the New World.

Not exactly. White men bought black slaves from BLACK Africans who
had taken them from their villages and as 'war booty'. That is how a
majority of black slaves were taken out of Africa. It was fellow Africans
who used their 'black brothers and sisters' as a part of their economy.
Slavery is still alive and well in Africa. Black Africans are still stealing
and selling their fellow black Africans. Hundreds of thousands are
still in bondage. Bondage brought about by Africans against fellow
Africans.

White Man is selling weapons to the poor people of Africa
instead of food

.
That's supply and demand. Weapons is what Africans and their
'governments' want and that is what they are willing to pay for.
If there was a big demand for food ... you can be sure that the
West would be selling it to them. If it ment making $$$, it would
be sold. Obviously the gangsters in Rwanda want guns and
bullets ... they don't want food or educational materials. So that
is what they are putting the money on the table for and that is
what they are getting. If the war lords over there wanted
peanuts, potatoes, rice, or whatever ... and they put the money
on the table for those goods ... they'd get it.
Don't blame westerners for selling people what they want. Try
blaming the Africans who want the guns and are willing to pay
for them.





[edit on 3/22/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by marg6043
I never said I did...

This is the question whata person in power would be asked and ask him or herself.

.............. on the first sentence, on the second one funny I though US gives the impression that can change the world and bring freedom to other countries, but we all know is a lie you are right we can not change centuries of believes.

Yes I agree with the last one...But this isnt totaly true....remember hitlers pal gobles? He used propaganda to change children....this is exactly what happens today and is still happening today..

But then again we have a thread that is telling you how evil is the UN for taking advantage of a "century old business"

Yeah..I believe we are not so diffrent you and I..

And like i said it can be control but not be stop, and then remember the old business is practice in US too..................

Yes there is control...that is the only levarige....

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The West boycotted South Africa and ended apartied. It wasn't
the Africans who did it alone. It wouldn't have ended except that
the West saw the error of apartied and even though it hurt
Western business'... we all boycotted and wrote letters and
protested ...

After centuries of slave export and the white men came and take the DIAMOND rich South Africa, enslave the people, breed apartheid and West boycotted and protested?

Wow. I am speechless.

America sends Peace Corps volunteers to build,
teach, and generally help. My next door neighbor went to
Africa to do this. He learned the native language. He ate
their food. He was supposed to be teaching them how to
dig a well, but the village people refused to help and my
neighbor ended up putting the well in himself, which of course
the villagers used as soon as he was done. He also contracted
diseases over there (MANY Peace Corps volunteers do) .. he had
parasites eating his arm and his health suffered greatly, but he
still volunteered and helped for two years, even though his helping
and making a well for the locals went unappreciated. He didn't do
it for appreciation of course, but it still would have been nice if
one of them at least said 'thanks for giving up 2 years of your life
and risking your health for us here in Africa'.

Ok I admire people that want to go and help to any Third World country. Especially all volunteers, doctors, nurses, humanitarian workers, everybody that comes to help in this tragedy. For them I have nothing but Respect!

BUT their efforts are useless in a cruel world like Africa, unless something SERIOUSLY changes. You cant just CURE the disease, you must PREVENT it. And the West is just curing the wounds of Africa, not preventing them, just letting them to happen again and again...

If you mean overhunting Africa. Sure. It's a shame. But
Africans are guilty of that as well. AND it's Westerners
who are spearheading the programs to save the wildlife
in Africa.

A real Shame for all humanity and a perfect example of Mans gift to Mother Nature.

Not exactly. White men bought black slaves from BLACK Africans who
had taken them from their villages and as 'war booty'. That is how a
majority of black slaves were taken out of Africa. It was fellow Africans
who used their 'black brothers and sisters' as a part of their economy.
Slavery is still alive and well in Africa. Black Africans are still stealing
and selling their fellow black Africans. Hundreds of thousands are
still in bondage. Bondage brought about by Africans against fellow
Africans.

Yes I know that. But who SHOWED the Black Man what the White Man really wants?

At the initial stage of the trade parties of Europeans captured Africans in raids on communities in the coastal areas. But this soon gave way to buying slaves from African rulers and traders. The vast majority of slaves taken out of Africa were sold by African rulers, traders and a military aristocracy who all grew wealthy from the business.

The wanted goods were slaves. And Africa was really "happy" to pay the cost. Yes, really nice hiding behind the Black Slave Hunters. More and more colonization of the New World needed more slave work force, and the number estimate of the total human loss to Africa over the four centuries of the transatlantic slave trade range from 30 million to 200 million (yea I know a very "rough number" but still gives you a feeling of the cost).

That's supply and demand. Weapons is what Africans and their
'governments' want and that is what they are willing to pay for.
If there was a big demand for food ... you can be sure that the
West would be selling it to them. If it ment making $$$, it would
be sold. Obviously the gangsters in Rwanda want guns and
bullets ... they don't want food or educational materials. So that
is what they are putting the money on the table for and that is
what they are getting. If the war lords over there wanted
peanuts, potatoes, rice, or whatever ... and they put the money
on the table for those goods ... they'd get it.
Don't blame westerners for selling people what they want. Try
blaming the Africans who want the guns and are willing to pay
for them.

Yes, very nice thinking.

Its like finding a liquor store next to and a gun store in poor black neighbourhood like Compton and not in elite white neighbourhood like Bevery HIlls in LA.

Its supply and demand you say?

So the west supplies so called rebels with weapons and then tries to prevent any wars from happening? And then come and "save the refugees"? Again they are curing the disease instead of PREVENTING IT. And to prevent it, you must not sell weapons to Africa! Put a friggin' embargo on weapons for entire Africa! Warlords want war, that is logical. And war they will get. But the people of Africa dont want war, but war they will get.

People of Africa want peace and food and water and medicine and did I mention Peace?

Why does not the West bring that Peace to them? No. The west brigns gunz and ammunition. Why does not the west work on preventing the rebels, the warlords, the insurgents from getting weapons?

So if the gangsters in Rwanada wants guns they will get them without problem.

If the poor child in Congo wants food because he is starving, he wont get it.

If your child "demanded" an AK47 automatic rifle, would you "supply" him with that?

The cruel irony is that most of the people in Africa are so poor, that even if there was food to buy, they could not AFFORD it anyway. So thats why 16 year old girls have to sell their bodies for 1 dollar.

[edit on 22/3/05 by Souljah]