Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Does anyone know .. I can't find the answer .. if the UN has certain requirements of the countries sending peacekeepers??

It appears that they do, FF. I should say, at least some of the countries take it upon themselves to train their troops. This link points out several instances:

You see, herein lies the Problem. Whilst many contributor nations have good or excellent militaries, many do not.

Unfortunately, those that seem to have the most unprofessional seem to make up the bulk of the Peacekeeper forces as the more Professional armies are either unwilling or simply too overcommitted. That's the problem with a professional force; cost. You end up having less men, ergo, can't be everywhere. So it ends being African and SE Asian countries, many with human rights violations going on in their won country, who send the bulk of the force.

If Western Governments were more willing to commit their own, the UN would be much more effective.

As it stands, the Security Council is hampered by bickering and the constant vetoing going on and even if they agree on a resolution and peacekeeping force, the Big 5 turn round to everyone else and ask them to pony up the Troops needed.

France rarely commits any troops of it's own, but rather the Foreign Legion, which no one in France cares about. The UK sends some, but we're WAYYYY over stretched anyway. The US commits none, as does Russia. China does send some (Lebanon), but has only just begun doing so.

The UN needs reform and badly. But it isn't useless. Get rid of Vetoes for strarters and if you want to be on the UNSC, then you'd better start putting up the troops too. You can't sit on the UNSC and dictate to the world if you expect someone else to do the dirty work...

Originally posted by jsobecky
some of the countries take it upon themselves to train their troops.

Yes, some countries do. But what does the UN do to insure that those troops have been screened and trained to be 'peacekeepers' instead of soldiers? Culture sensitivity by the UN ...That kind of thing. I would like to know what the UN has to insure this.

Originally posted by stumason
If Western Governments were more willing to commit their own, the UN would be much more effective.

Entirely possible. It's just a real chore to be paying so much money into that organization AND to be expected to keep it up with a majority of it's troops as well. We would have to go to a draft to be able to militarize the UN AND the USA at the same time. Do you approve of a draft for this? A U.N. draft? I volunteered for the US military but I wouldn't ever volunteer for a UN draft. I'd flat out protest and dodge it.

As it stands, the Security Council is hampered by ..

I fully agree. It's hampered by all you mentioned and more. Corruption, bribes, greed, political jockeying, .... etc etc

The UN needs reform and badly. But it isn't useless.

Is it saveable or should it be tossed out and something new put in it's place?

Yes, some countries do. But what does the UN do to insure that those troops have been screened and trained to be 'peacekeepers' instead of soldiers? Culture sensitivity by the UN ...That kind of thing. I would like to know what the UN has to insure this.

Nothing. That is the responsibility of the donor nation. Hence, the problems.

Entirely possible. It's just a real chore to be paying so much money into that organization AND to be expected to keep it up with a majority of it's troops as well. We would have to go to a draft to be able to militarize the UN AND the USA at the same time. Do you approve of a draft for this? A U.N. draft? I volunteered for the US military but I wouldn't ever volunteer for a UN draft. I'd flat out protest and dodge it.

Thats a bit extreme, FF. The US, the majority of the time, has a huge military doing naff all. Only in the last 4-5 years have your actual operational commitments gone up and you still only deploy around 10-15% of your total force. Besides, you don't need to commit so many, perhaps a few thousand here and there. Alongisde the other 4 on the UNSC, that could total a substantial and effective force.

Problem is, none of the 5 seem that committed. There are token deployments, but much of the brunt is shouldered by countires like Bangladesh, India and other assorted 2nd rate militaries.

I fully agree. It's hampered by all you mentioned and more. Corruption, bribes, greed, political jockeying, .... etc etc

Indeed. Thats politicians for you. All 5 are guilty of looking after their own interests rather than actually sitting down and working something out for the common good. France, Russia and China are the current "bad boys" of the UNSC, but the USA has had it's share of the blame. Vetoing almost every resoltuion to do with Israel for starters. The UK also is guilty.

Is it saveable or should it be tossed out and something new put in it's place?

Yes, it's saveable, but it needs reforming. What else would you put in it's place?

alright, the United States of America is just as much to blame as the rest of the UN here

why are people talking about the UN like it's some sort of monolithic nation?

it's an organization
why doesn't the USA try to change this one problem, they certainly have some sway

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

why doesn't the USA try to change this one problem, they certainly have some sway

Because, like the other 4 permanent UNSC members, it serves their own purposes well when needed.....

Originally posted by stumason
Thats politicians for you. ... Yes, it's saveable, but it needs reforming. What else would you put in it's place?

Let's look at those two things for a moment ..

'that's politcians for you' and 'it needs reforming'.

You have just put two key things together. CAN politicans ever reform? Seriously. With few exceptions they are all ________ (fill in the blank with negative comment of choice).

I'm not being a wise acre, I'm just saying ... CAN something full of politicians EVER be reformed. I'm jaded. Perhaps fatalistic. I just don't know ....

Haha, we actually agree on something, FF

If I had my way, I'd get rid of elections and have representatives chosen by a random lottery in their constituancy. Should get rid of a good bulk of the self serving "career" politicians

Originally posted by stumason
Haha, we actually agree on something, FF

I'm sure there are even more things we agree on .... time will bring them out.

As far as having countries give their troops to work for the UN... It doesn't work well with America.

When i signed up to be in the US Army, I signed up to defend AMERICA and her interests. The UN is a totally different entity If at the time of signing up I had been told that there was a good chance that I'd have to wear the UN blue helmet and do the UNs bidding .. I wouldn't have signed up. I knew many people who served with me who felt the same way.

I didn't mind putting my life on the line for America. I sure as heck wouldn't do it for the UN. Also - there is deeeeeeep resentment towards the UN in America, especially in the deep south. When I (was stuck, yuk) living in Alabama for 9 years I remember seeing a lot of bill boards and bumper stickers about getting America out of the UN. If the US Military were suddenly to be a main supplier of troops to the UN, then the recruitment rate for the US Military from the deep south would fall very far behind.

And I'd agree with people for not wanting to join up.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
And I'd agree with people for not wanting to join up.

Why is that though? I mean dont you want a power/orginisation that brings the collective world governments together to protect and spread peace?