Ok, maybe I misunderstood the OP. Please explain to me how you interpret this:
Although clear analysis is not your strong point, what pray tell, given december’s own argumentation above, do you think his fucking point is then, Lib?
Could you help me to understand what his argument is? I’m still not clear.
Me too. 
A zealot?
No, you’re simply incredibly dense if that Chalabi discussion is any yardstick.
My points are[ul][] to deplore the incident. []to laugh, since it was the opposite of civility and peace – values the UN is supposed to represent. To observe that the UN isn’t as good at it’s ought to be at certain tasks.[/ul] This incident is minor, but so are lots of threads here in the Pit.
I am waiting for Lib to tell us in a few words what exactly it is he believes the thread is about and how he would interpret
In other words a cheap and stupid swipe at the UN intended to cast aspersion on it and connect up with your typical prejudices. Sailor then was spot on.
Not sure whether to be insulted or honored, if that discussion is any yardstick. 
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by december *
My points are[ul][li] to deplore the incident. []to laugh, since it was the opposite of civility and peace – values the UN is supposed to represent. To observe that the UN isn’t as good at it’s ought to be at certain tasks.[/ul] This incident is minor, but so are lots of threads here in the Pit. [/li][/QUOTE]
december, you are an idiot. The UN is not as good as it ought to be at certain tasks? Like organizing a cafeteria when the employees go on strike? Is that what the UN is supposed to be good at?
And how would you justify the USA organizing elections in another country after the last presidential fiasco? Please, give us your take on that or explain why that is not relevant to the US organizing elections elsewhere. This is just surreal.
This is not about offense per se. But december has a history of misrepresenting things. Of twisting facts. Of presenting pure hyperbole as fact. And mostly, a history of taking minor things out of context, only to blow them all up and apply them to everything associated with whatever his target du jour is (I think he has a dropdown-plugin in his IE that lets him select the UN, the Palestinians, Arafat, the EU, the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, or France).
He has been doing this for so long, that people have come to expect this sort of behaviour from him. Since his debating techniques (or lack thereof) are so disingenious, people immediately start raking him over the coals for the form rather than for the substance of his message. And understandably so, as the “substance” of his messages is usually not even worth debating. A free UN lunch got out of hand because of a strike, and people took all the food. Food which was to be free anyway. Big fucking deal, most sane people would say, so they won’t even debate it seriously.
Also, note that december once again opted for the Pit instead of for GD. He doesn’t want to debate. He wants to curse at the Evil United Nations. Don’t let his ability to form three sentences in a row throw you off. He’s playing his usual game, and it’s as transparant as clean polished glass.
This is The Straight Dope, where facts prevail over conviction and spin. That’s what I perceive.
I trust the average Doper to rake me over the coals too, if I were to be so ignorant to compare an organisational mishap leading to a minor disturbance of a free luncheon to widescale looting of the historic treasures of a nation where anarchy suddenly reigned after an invasion by a foreign army.
I think the majority vote here seems to be that it’s a crap analogy, Lib. As for all the attacks on december’s personality: he’s only got himself to blame.
The only person who’s responsible for december’s reputation on these boards is december. As for your impression that december doesn’t yank chains per se: that could very well be. I’ve been reading this guy’s tripe for a few years now, and I’m not sure if he’s a deliberate troll or just an intellectually challenged arch-conservative (which doesn’t mean conservatives are intellectually challenged per se, of course). Maybe he’s a bit of both.
The fact that the guy is still around tells you that the Staff isn’t entirely sure what december is, either. Well, other than “rather annoying”, that is.
By the way in regards to december’s characterization of UN peacekeeping capacity and the Bosnia debacle (in which as I recall people like december did not want to get involved at all at the time) I direct readers to this helpful resource center:
Lib, since I was the first poster to this thread, and thus, on some level set the argument, I can honestly say that I would have posted the exact same thing no matter who the OP was.
Moreover, I am a little disappointed that you have compared liberals to Stormfronters. I see the comparison as not only offensive, but intellectually dishonest.
Weasel mode engaged, Captain.
The misinterpretation isn’t whatever Time presented as solid journalism (which it wasn’t). It’s you taking a minor incident, and applying it to the ethics of the entire organisation. How else would you explain your thread title?
december, should you ever provide a valid point, I’d be happy to debate it. In this thread, I’ve seen none, though. Piling on? You invite it onto yourself, buddy. It’s your disingenious tactics getting you in trouble, not your points of view - your points of view have been so ridiculous as of late that they’re not worth debating. And if you felt they needed to be debated, then why did you start this in the Pit?
Libertarian, have at it. Try and save him.
By the way, for Coldfire:
"The Dutch Were Not at Fault in Srebrenica - The World Was "
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/lessons/sreb1.htm
I’m not sure I liked the article’s analysis but I was moderately amused by its…backhanded praise I think might be the term, for the Dutch.
Your bias precedes you. I do not believe he needs “saving”. Just because the waters are stormy does not mean that a ship is off-course.
Which is to say that Lib has apparently realized that december in fact argued what Lib claimed was a strawman.
Yes, a very nice metaphor I’m sure but it doesn’t change the fact that the OP is a pile of bollocks.
Well, as much as I would like to believe that the Dutch were without blame, they were not. Grave errors were made in top military echelons, both nationaly and at the UN level. The investigations showed that the Dutch weren’t solely to blame, which was only just. And as a result of a Dutch investigation over Srebrenica, the government at least had the balls to resign, even though the report was published 7 years later, and the responsible ministers were not part of the resigning cabinet (though the PM was).
Nobody deserves praise over Srebrenica, though. It was a fuck-up of the highest order. But it’s good to know that the men on the ground aren’t any longer held responsible for it: they were too lightly armed, outnumbered, and did not get the air support they were promised. Leading to the deaths of thousands of Muslim men.
Lib, if you don’t think december needs saving, do you agree with his point, then? And if you don’t, then what is the purpose of your “support”, for lack of a better word? Do you agree that his thread title and tactics in this thread are intellectually dishonest?
I don’t disagree, but read the article for the amusement factor in re characterization of the Dutch, it’s a bit on the patronizing side in my reading.