A closer look at U.N. intervention in the U.S.

This is an initial thought and not well developed. However,it is worth throwing out there as seeing if it has any merit.

One of the fears of the right wing in the U.S. is U.N. action within the country. There have been sporadic reports of U.N. troops/equipment from around the country over the last few years with huge cries of alarm from the 'right'. ( I am 'right' in my views)

I believe the vast majority of these are joint training efforts. Living in the N.W., I've seen over the years a number of Canadian convoys from the P.P.C.L.I. unit on Vancouver Island travelling to the Yakima facility and have 'visited' with members at various truck stops. (Good guys, by the way)

(As I type, more and more comes to mind on this subject and I am now convinced that it's flat out not happening...at least during our lifetimes!)

Consider the U.N.'s history in military interventions. LOL. It sucks. The Korean War is considered a "U.N. action". Numerous nations participated, yes, BUT, it was a U.S. conflict. Both by numbers, command and infrastructure. Outside of Korea, I can't think of any major intervention that was successful. Some still simmering after decades. (Cypress, is an e.g.) The U.N. an entity that has no will/political leadership, no military, completely untrusted by any save the naïve.

Forget the military side of this, the 23 million veterans, the 300 million weapons in civilian control, the probable 50% desertion rate amongst U.S. forces...forget all that.

PRIOR to all this would be the complete crashing of the U.S. dollar and therefore the world's economic system, the probable collapse of U.S. food exports resulting in starvation and soaring food costs world-wide. What country would commit it's forces to an intervention when their home borders and internal problems loom?

None!

Of all the things we have to worry about, this isn't one of them.

Thoughts?

I'm more worried about the US in other countries !

China or Russia has vido power so they would have to get the ok from them :>) a reply to: nwtrucker

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Now there's another barrier/grid-lock point to this scenario ever occurring.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
This is an initial thought and not well developed. However,it is worth throwing out there as seeing if it has any merit.

One of the fears of the right wing in the U.S. is U.N. action within the country. There have been sporadic reports of U.N. troops/equipment from around the country over the last few years with huge cries of alarm from the 'right'. ( I am 'right' in my views)

I believe the vast majority of these are joint training efforts. Living in the N.W., I've seen over the years a number of Canadian convoys from the P.P.C.L.I. unit on Vancouver Island travelling to the Yakima facility and have 'visited' with members at various truck stops. (Good guys, by the way)

(As I type, more and more comes to mind on this subject and I am now convinced that it's flat out not happening...at least during our lifetimes!)

Consider the U.N.'s history in military interventions. LOL. It sucks. The Korean War is considered a "U.N. action". Numerous nations participated, yes, BUT, it was a U.S. conflict. Both by numbers, command and infrastructure. Outside of Korea, I can't think of any major intervention that was successful. Some still simmering after decades. (Cypress, is an e.g.) The U.N. an entity that has no will/political leadership, no military, completely untrusted by any save the naïve.

Forget the military side of this, the 23 million veterans, the 300 million weapons in civilian control, the probable 50% desertion rate amongst U.S. forces...forget all that.

PRIOR to all this would be the complete crashing of the U.S. dollar and therefore the world's economic system, the probable collapse of U.S. food exports resulting in starvation and soaring food costs world-wide. What country would commit it's forces to an intervention when their home borders and internal problems loom?

None!

Of all the things we have to worry about, this isn't one of them.

Thoughts?

Yet, the right wing is all for violating the UN charter, international law, and the sovereignty of other nations when it serves US foreign policy? The right wing always screams national sovereignty when someone says that it was illegal to invade Iraq for example. As a commentator above said, the US is far more worrisome to other countries than the UN.

Second, I agree with you, if there are any troops they are doing training exercises. The UN does NOT have an effective fighting force.

Just like in Libya and the Korean War, any real Chapter VII military action on the part of the Security Council requires the military power of the US, Britain, France, NATO, etc. The peacekeeping troops contributed by other nations for routine Chapter V and VI peacekeeping missions are token and minimal groups.

Third, as someone who actually works at the UN headquarters, i have never once seen or heard anything to support the right wing fears about the UN. My former boss used to work with Agenda 21. He laughs HARD when we joke about the conspiracies.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised we see this similarly. Yes, the 'right' goes a bit too far on this. Probably originating in Militia groups. (there has been a few reports of Saddam stating the best scenario for defeating the U.S. would be the dissolution of the Union. Funding wouldn't be an impossible scenario..)

Not too different than making the U.S. the 'Great Satan' or the great violator of 'International law', however. The same mechanism as the 'militia's. "Boogie Man"...watch out...LOL.

I see France is sending the De Gaulle to assist with the fight against Isis. That's based on 20 dead. No U.N. consultation on that one either. The U.S.-and others- suffer 3,000 dead from 9/11. I highly doubt and major nation would have waited for permission from the U.N. on how to respond if that event had occurred on their soil, my friend.

On the U.N. and International Law we shall have to agree to disagree. You know perfectly well the U.S. never signed on to that particular agreement and the U.N. was never intended to be a world government. Perhaps it has merely 'evolved' in that direction. Perhaps there's more to it than 'mere evolving'....Either way, I don't really care. The resulting organization is unsupportable beyond humanitarian duties and minor agreement issues.

The violation of a nation's sovereignty has the same result with or without U.N. "sanction" from what I can see. The rhetoric is huffing and puffing on semantics.

I, nor anyone I know would or will give credence to the U.N. until they can be looked up to as a standard to be admired. Until that time, I will stick to the U.S. as the standard I also cannot look up to...LOL. It's still 'higher' than the U.N.'s.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

P.S. Please don't misunderstand me on this issue. I'm not suggesting there isn't a desire, at least in some quarters, in the U.N. to affect such an action on the U.S..

Merely that it is impractical..

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised we see this similarly. Yes, the 'right' goes a bit too far on this. Probably originating in Militia groups. (there has been a few reports of Saddam stating the best scenario for defeating the U.S. would be the dissolution of the Union. Funding wouldn't be an impossible scenario..)

Not too different than making the U.S. the 'Great Satan' or the great violator of 'International law', however. The same mechanism as the 'militia's. "Boogie Man"...watch out...LOL.

I see France is sending the De Gaulle to assist with the fight against Isis. That's based on 20 dead. No U.N. consultation on that one either. The U.S.-and others- suffer 3,000 dead from 9/11. I highly doubt and major nation would have waited for permission from the U.N. on how to respond if that event had occurred on their soil, my friend.

On the U.N. and International Law we shall have to agree to disagree. You know perfectly well the U.S. never signed on to that particular agreement and the U.N. was never intended to be a world government. Perhaps it has merely 'evolved' in that direction. Perhaps there's more to it than 'mere evolving'....Either way, I don't really care. The resulting organization is unsupportable beyond humanitarian duties and minor agreement issues.

The violation of a nation's sovereignty has the same result with or without U.N. "sanction" from what I can see. The rhetoric is huffing and puffing on semantics.

I, nor anyone I know would or will give credence to the U.N. until they can be looked up to as a standard to be admired. Until that time, I will stick to the U.S. as the standard I also cannot look up to...LOL. It's still 'higher' than the U.N.'s.

Hold on, you just equated Iraq with 9/11, and implied that the 3000 dead from 911 make the Iraq War okay.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, a fact that Bush and all of his cohort has now admitted on video. Invading Iraq for 911 is like invading Sweden because Italy attacked us. It makes zero sense.

According to international law, countries are allowed to act unilaterally in the face of actual aggression from a country or group. True self-defense does not require UN resolutions. So, most of us can understand Afghanistan, if it is true that Al Queda did 911 and Bin Laden was there. That was probably legal.

What is completely illegal, immoral, and insane was the Iraq War. That, is not legal. Saddam did not attack us, he didn't want to attack us, etc. The whole WMD thing is a diversion, as half of the countries in the world have WMD's.

Finally, I find that the very same people who say that the UN is ineffective and can't do anything are the very same people who refuse to give the UN the power necessary to do so. The UN has no teeth really, and besides the UN Security Council, can't enforce anything. And, it has no real military. And, the P-5 including the US have veto power and veto everything. So, people can't talk about UN standards, how much it is getting done, and violations of the Charter and simultaneously refuse to give it any real power to do anything. Most people don't want to give up any more sovereignty.

Having said that, I am adamantly against those who claim we don't have to follow the Charter.

We signed, along with virtually all countries, the UN Charter and other international legal agreements, agreeing legally to NOT do things like the Iraq War, engage in torture, etc. There is no excuse therefore to break international law on such things. When we do, it's pure hypocrisy, illegal, and shows a real lack of respect for our relationships with other countries.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You seem to base your argument on 'legality', of agreements, so on.

The 'agreement' I was referring to was the International Court itself. So you allow that Afghanistan was likely 'legal'. I consider it was necessary. I also consider Iraq necessary. Clearly, CLEARLY, Gulf War Two was a continuation of the first. There was nothing but a cease-fire agreement. An agreement that was violated so many times, in so many different ways by Saddam that's it's almost an insult to suggest these hadn't occurred or that Saddam had in any way conceded defeat.

To suggest other countries had WDMs as some form of 'out' for Saddam is disingenuous. Those other countries hadn't invaded Kuwait, looting it of it's wealth, setting fire to it's oil wells. Saddam lost his 'right' to WDMs with those acts. No one else.

Still, Gulf War TWO likely doesn't happen without 9/11. I understand Iraq had no direct involvement with that event. It remains that 9/11 changed the mind-set of the U.S., or at least the Bush Administration.

Between an acquiescing U.N., a oil addicted/blackmailed Europe, A State Department that took more direction from those outside the U.S. than any administration, toss in a thoroughly, British-created, messed up Middle-East and you have the ingredients.9/11 was the last straw.

The war on terror, it was named. More accurately a war on state sponsored terrorism. 200+ terrorist training camps, most out in the desert, from Libya on east through Iraq and Iran. Either known by those countries and 'ignored' or with outright support. Bush correctly states "why are we swatting at flies?" (Just Bin Laden and Co.)

Trouble is Saddam. Offered his own Island and more than sufficient money, according to reports, he refuses the offer. So Bush fixes his father's biggest error and finishes it. Rather easily. THAT was the time to leave, in hind-site, of course the Euros would be without Iraqi oil and much higher oil expenses if the U.S. didn't try to leave a stable gov't behind.( the same excuse for not addressing the Saudi connection to 9/11. "We need their oil", says the Euros...The House of Saud gets a mulligan.

In hind-site, it was a mistake. Mistakes abounded with Iraq. Taking out Saddam, however, was very necessary.

Please do not tell me the "Charter" in '48 ever intended the U.N. we have now. You blame insufficient empowerment by those who do not wish to lose more sovereignty. That's a small part of it, the big part is trust. No country that isn't totally beholding to the U.N. trusts that body.

It is their decision process, not the level of their 'power' that does them in. Placing nations that should be embargoed by the very committee that they have been given the 'chair' to. Human Rights committees, etc. Oil-for Food, missing funds, funds distributed have no record of the use, indicting a sitting U.S. Federal Judge for sentencing a convicted murderer to the death penalty with crimes against humanity while ignoring a huge number of other countries with far, far, worse crimes by "U.N. Standards. Unending attacks on Israel with nary a mention of similar or worse 'crimes' by their enemies...the list is long, these are but egs.

To further empower the U.N., to use your own words, is immoral and insane. I leave out 'illegal' . Prosecutorial discretion has already destroyed any value in quoting legality.