Should The UN be Militarized?

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by edsinger
No personally in my opinion it has not shown to be responsible enough. no one is perfect but the UN is to corrupt...

And the US is perfect is it

No country is perfect. So lets not creat another potential multi billion dollar scandal with thousands of lives at stake.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
No country is perfect. So lets not creat another potential multi billion dollar scandal with thousands of lives at stake.

So you think the entire UN is currupt?

The United Nations is the way forward, it can do so much good in the world, but, it is underfunded, under-reformed, and under-led.
It needs massive changes, but it can benefit the world if people give it a chance.

should the un be militarized?

god could you imagine all the rape cases that would sprout up if that happened?

I think the UN just needs to burn away they are so corrupt..

Start a new world alliance where kofi annan and his cronies aren't allowed into the club.

Originally posted by TrueLies
god could you imagine all the rape cases that would sprout up if that happened?

Yeah, almost as high as the number of abuses in Abu Ghraib prison..........

I think the UN just needs to burn away they are so corrupt..

Really, so your calling every country in the world currupt....includeing your own...
I think most of the US has been "anti UN" assised.

Start a new world alliance where kofi annan and his cronies aren't allowed into the club.

Well then what would this new world alliance be like and do?

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by American Mad Man
No country is perfect. So lets not creat another potential multi billion dollar scandal with thousands of lives at stake.

So you think the entire UN is currupt?

Not the entire UN, but too much of it to warrent even considering giving them control of tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars and an entire army.

Bottom line:

No army for the UN. If they need force, call the US + NATO, Russia, China, or better yet France and Germany.

That actually sounds like a good plan, mabye they should work on thier ROE's and get some serios guys in there.....

This is a idea that came up in ATS chat from talk about the new EU battlegroups:


----------------

UN Battlegroups

Each country would have their own independent military.

But there would also be joint UN controlled forces.

eg UK/German battlegroup

eg New Zealand/UK battlegroup

This way where ever in the world an event happens there will be a UN battlegroup ready to respond to the event.

The forces could be labelled:
1st Global Battlegroup
2nd Global Battlegroup
3rd Global Battlegroup
etc

eg terrorist militia attack a city in Eastern Europe, the German/Norwegian battlegroup responds, supported by the UK/French Battlegroup

Originally posted by UK Wizard
This is a idea that came up in ATS chat from talk about the new EU battlegroups:


----------------

UN Battlegroups

Each country would have their own independent military.

But there would also be joint UN controlled forces.

eg UK/German battlegroup

eg New Zealand/UK battlegroup

This way where ever in the world an event happens there will be a UN battlegroup ready to respond to the event.

The forces could be labelled:
1st Global Battlegroup
2nd Global Battlegroup
3rd Global Battlegroup
etc

eg terrorist militia attack a city in Eastern Europe, the German/Norwegian battlegroup responds, supported by the UK/French Battlegroup

what would the usage be?

if there were such forces, they would have still to wait till the United Nations decide if they either get used or not,

- if it gets done by the world security council, the others feel oppresed, and may think that their military gets used for other peoples interests.

- if it gets decided by the all UN states, there will be no usage for battlegroups, as it isnt needed that fast, and so there can be used regular troops, cuz the most of the time UN will need to make a decision, if they either get used or not.


And who dicides, which states are aggressors, which are they victims?

who decides, which non-state organisations are freedom fighters, and which are terrorists?

who decides, which countrys are allowed to take influence on the decisions?

Originally posted by Wodan
what would the usage be?

Rapid response force to natural disasters, civil wars (securing friendly embassies, evacuating friendly workers/civilians etc)

if there were such forces, they would have still to wait till the United Nations decide if they either get used or not,

Creation of UN battlegroups would require reform before hand so the UN council could vote quickly.

- if it gets done by the world security council, the others feel oppresed, and may think that their military gets used for other peoples interests.

I guess the magic veto could come into play.

And who dicides, which states are aggressors, which are they victims?

The UN, i would have thought this one obvious.

who decides, which non-state organisations are freedom fighters, and which are terrorists?

see above

I wanted to bounce this back alive since I think it deserves to stay alive. The UN has been greatly underminded by MANY parties and frankly we need a stabiliesing force in the world. The lone actions of countries like the US, the UK to name just two help, but frankly leaveing this burden to a few countries is not the right thing to do. These countries have only so many troops and only so much influence. The US itself works with countries across the globe helping them and keeping the peace at the cost of its safety. It has only so many troops and only soo many planes. The UK is the exact same but on a much smaller scale due to our lower troop numbers.

Why should it fall to those countries to be the "police men and women" of the world when the world can do that job?

I'm going to go back on my battlegroup idea, as I no longer think it workable, maintaining a permanent military force under the banner of a alliance wouldn't work due to differing of opinions.

However in times of need troops should more often be under the banner of both their country and the UN, not making them UN troops but rather members of a taskforce.
So if Iraq hadn't gone the way it did, we would have had for example, UN Iraq Taskforce, with a wide combination of nations in control and providing troops.

Rather than it being America and the UK and etc etc, it would simply be the UN Iraq Taskforce under whatever General from whatever country.
Less side taking and more action.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
And thats what I am saying. NO! I am sick of the US paying for everything. The US already pays for 35% of the entire UN. And now the US should pay another 30 billion dollars? No!

The world needs something to keep to the peace, the US and the UK cant do this alone, you and I both know this. We just dont have enough boots on the ground to do this, with the help of other nations then world peace can be assured.

So now NATO takes on the responsability? Hmmm, sounds like more burden on the US, UK, Poland, etc. Why should WE take on all of this crap? NATO is fine as it is. If the UN needs help, just ask NATO instead of sucking up billions of extra dollars.

No, it would take the idea of NATO and put it to use in the UN, why would we only use NATO?
That would be the largest misuse of forces EVER!

It won't work like that. If you want the UN to have their own military they need to stream line everything. 1 main rifle. 1 main pistol. 1 main fighter. 1 min bomber. 1 main tank. 1 main APC. 1 main transport. Etc Etc Etc.

Why?
NATO dont use the same rifle or the same tank, they use the same calibre wich most countries use the same anyhow.

Its not that easy. You need bases in the middle east. What country is going to allow an international military base in their country that will most likely consist of mainly christians? What about in sout America where the economic boom will be fought over? How do you award one country the base and not the other?

It wont be mainly christians though, the forces would rotate.
The bases would be chosen effectively and if needs be ask the country in questiont to put its own forces under UN command.

Exactly my point! There are already a million things that are screwed up! Why make another multi billion dollar one? The UN has PROVEN through SCANDAL and IRRESPONSABILITY to be unworthy of trust. Again, if they need a military force, call NATO - it's already there and won't cost any more money.

The UN is made of countries, WE are to blame.
NATO is a western force, they CANT keep world peace.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are saying the US doesn't pay that much, I will have you know that we pay 30% of the TOTAL UN buget. Why in the flying # should we have to pay for 1/3 of an organization that lives to tell us how wrong we are? I would like the US to leae the UN all together. It would disolve in a week because no one else would put up the money.

Mabye because you send less troops on peacekeeping missions than the UK wich I might add is understrenght as it is. The US is one of the richest in the world, ofcourse its going to pay more/ Also he UN is NOT out tot tell the US it is wrong, THAT is sterotypeing.

Not really. The US produces the vast majority of the worlds best military gear. Our planes are clearly the best. Our MBT is the best. We will have the best rifle as soon as the XM-8 comes out. Best helo's. Best ships. Best subs. Best missles. Best bombs. Best artillery.

What?
The US imports everything, the M-16/ M4 is inferior to the G-33 in all respects.
The US uses the MP5 largely wich would you believe it or not is a german gun.
The US use many european guns and believe it or not the "best helos" are debatetable.
The US is ahead in many areas but not in every area.
You should know that.

And since as you said "the rich countries should pay the most", should all of those US dollars then go to buy Rusian equipment? HELL NO! Every cent of our money should go towards buying US equipment, just like the Russians would want their money buying their stuff.

The US dollars would be added to main fund, also the russians would give thier ammount wich would also might I add go to buying US equipment as well as UK, french, or anyother member states equpment.
Ever hear of co-operation?

This is exactly how scandals happen. Who ever is in charge of deciding where the oney gets spent gets bribed.

Really?
So now the entire US, UK, russian, french, german, italain and basically the entire worlds accountants are now accepting bribes?

In short, if the rest of the world wants to do it, go ahead. I don't want 1 cent of US tax payers money spent on this. We don't need an international military. If we have a problem, we can take care of it ourselves with our own military. It would cost less for us just to show up with our own military.
[edit on 13-2-2005 by American Mad Man]

So you dont want world peace?
You care more about yourself than your allies and helping keeping world peace?
With respect, pull your head out of your rear end and think realisticly here.

Hell, no. See my avatar.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Hmmm, sounds like more burden on the US, UK, Poland, etc.

- This belated and rather sudden inclusion of Poland into all things (thanks to Bush scrabbling around to cobble together his 'coalition'.......aren't they 'out of favour' now they are winding down and pulling out if Iraq ) is rather amusing.

You do realise how little Poland has to contribute and does contribute don't you?

They have only just joined the EU and have a long long way to go to approach anything like the average western European standard of living/wealth.