Should U.N. Have an Army?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by goofyfish, Apr 29, 2002.

  1. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    A participant in a recent IRC discussion presented the idea that the United Nations should form an army by recruiting, on its own, from people around the world (rather than requesting nations to send armed units). They would then not be restricted by petty political and financial interests of the member nations and could effectively intervene in rogue countries.

    The questions remained as to how one could trust U.N. to be the judge of right and wrong? Being realistic, it most certainly could not be done within the existing structure of the U.N., and somehow a standing army that is not in the hands of an immediately elected government comes across as a tad bit worrying to me (military organizations, even when in the hands of elected democratic governments, don't exactly make me tingle with excitement either.) Who is going to pay for this U.N. Army, Navy, and Air Force? It'll cost an awful lot of money to provide them with a modern fighting force capable of worldwide deployment. Where are their bases going to be?

    As the level of intelligence here is generally (generally, I say) higher than what I find on IRC, I thought I would throw it out for dissection.

    Peace.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pine_net Chaos Product Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    485
    In September 1961, when President Kennedy formally presented the official U.S. disarmament program described in State Department Publication 7277. Entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, the program calls for the nations of the world -- including the U.S. -- to disarm, turn over their military might to the UN, and make the world body an unchallengeable military power.

    In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Yes Cant talk now but i will tomorow (hopefully)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Who would conrtol the activities of this force? The Security Council?
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    HELL NO

    the security council should be abolished and EVERYTHING should be run from the general floor

    Why should the US and the other 9 (think thats how many you said goofy) run the WORLDS army. Its the resboncablilty of every nation

    Thats all i can say because i have to leave (im at the local libary because my computers out of download for this month)
     
  9. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Equal votes by the full UN on whether or not to send in the military? I'd prefer that to allowing the security council to do it. And make such decisions fully exempt from security council veto. Also, I think that a nation should not be allowed to sit on the security council if they are not up to date on their UN membership fees and other payments (yes, that means the USA). Another also: Once activated, the UN military should be run by military leaders, not by the politicians of the UN. Allowing the UN politicians to decide things once the military is active would be a sure way to prolong conflicts and get more soldiers killed.
     
  10. Magic~Carpet~Ride Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    40
    I find the idea of one world ruling body with the only military force vaguely disquieting...

    The idea of it sounds good, but I can imagine the UN becoming (if it isnt there already) somewhat like US politics.. he who has the money makes the rules.

    National leaders throwing their votes open to the highest bidder. UN heads of state, at the moment, end up there (I would hope) more out of altruism than from a lust for power. Changing the focus of the UN from a peacekeeping body with adjudicatory aims to an armed international body enforcing law (whose law?) might attract a different breed of political animal, and quite frankly that scares the willies out of me.

    What we do if the UN "goes bad"? Voice a protest in the strongest possible terms?

    Am I merely an untrusting cynic?
     
  11. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    Like most solutions they create new problems. It's a problem, the money thing, but is there a better way?
     
  12. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    What dose that matter

    Why not give ultimate power to ultimate representation rather than to a minority (and yes compared to the whole world you ARE a minority)
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2002
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    If the UN had the power it should have and ran everything from the general assebly then whats wrong with it?

    It would really represent the countrys of the world because the representives would have to report to there indevitual goverments

    I also see no problem with it making laws and admistering them

    The laws would be concidered and voted on in the assembly so they would be fair

    They should have bases all over the world and that SHOULD be the only force around. Maybe countrys police forces but no millatary ones
     
  14. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Confused, goofyfish ...

    " ... and could effectively intervene in rogue countries."

    Do not understand.

    Limit its intervention to civil wars?

    Like what happened in Rwanda?

    "The failure by the United Nations to prevent, and subsequently,
    to stop the genocide in Rwanda was a failure by the United
    Nations system as a whole.
    "

    <a href=http://www.un.org/News/ossg/rwanda_report.htm><font color=red>INQUIRY INTO THE ACTIONS OF THE UN DURING THE 1994 GENOCIDE IN RWANDA</font></a>

    Take care

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Magic~Carpet~Ride Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    40
    er... OK then Asguard, since the muslim nations probably represent the largest single aligned body on the planet, population wise (Not sure of my facts here but they come pretty damn close) shall we give it to them? Majority rules right?

    Grab a turban and a prayer mat mate... you're going to need them.

    Here's something you wrote in the Ethics thread under
    "Can a culture be abnormal, evil, neurotic?"

    "I would like to add that if the would gave victoria to NZ then I would fight, when you have no rights to control the goverment that controls you then who wouldn't. The US did (i think you called it the war of independance?)"
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2002
  16. Magic~Carpet~Ride Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    40
    And what are you going to have this all powerful UN do when, say, they ask the Sikagoi nation to sell oil at cheaper prices to the country of Mirriandy and the Sikagoi tell them to get knotted? Go in at the point of a gun and force them to?
     
  17. Magic~Carpet~Ride Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    40
    Not at this stage, no. But why create new problems to replace the old ones? We cant just go and apply band aids, a more comprehensive solution is required. Which, at this point in history, humanity is not mature enough to find.

    Oh yeah, something else...
    Who the hell is going to pay for this "super-military"? More taxes, levied on every gvernment on the world? I'm sure that'll do the Argentinian and Bangledeshian economies a WORLD of good.

    And...
    How long will it be before the world's "Major Players" all find justification for "police forces" armed with automatic rifles and the odd "Armoured Crowd-Control Vehicle" or "Airial Peace-Keeping Craft"?
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2002
  18. Azrael Angel of Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    134
    The U.N was formed with the best of intentions. But as with most things, the people in power become corrupted and interested in money and personal power then anything else. The idea of a U.N controlled military power has its good points, but control would need to be in the hands of the general assembly and not in the security council
     
  19. Azrael Angel of Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    134
    On thinking about this more, I feel that the U.N or an orginization similiar will come to power in the future. Already we are seeing a trend away from the nation-states of days gone by to something like world-states. In Europe there is the EU, in the Americas we have NAFTA, granted these are only economic, but how long will it be before they become more then just economic and start to take on more resposibility. Or here is a twist, how long before a small, 3rd world, poor country pledges itself to the U.N or something similiar and hands its government and military forces over? Its something to think about! Or we might see a rise of corporations gaining power in 3rd world countries and taking over as the government. We face interesting times ahead, I just hope I'm around to see some of it.
     
  20. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    I don't see what that quote had to do with anything. It was to show people that palistians are no different to anyone else

    I don't really see what you want me to respond

    Please explanin what you mean
    You posts were only ONE line and quotes of mine
     
  21. Benji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    306
    U.N = paper tiger
    It will fall eventually just as the league of nations before it.
     
  22. Magic~Carpet~Ride Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    40
    Sorry Asguard, what I meant was, here you have posted something which, to me, seems to say that if someone were to force Australia to give Victoria to the Kiwis you would fight back, feeling that such a move was unjust.

    If that was done by an all-powerful UN, with the only army in the world, what exactly would you do about it?
     
  23. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    oh ok

    Er

    the idear is that rather than a powerfull nation responcable only to ITS people invade and TAKE my land, we are talking about a universal organisation responcable to everyone INCLUDING the people of the country you are saying they are taking land from. Hopfully this means they WOULDN'T take land from Australia or anyother nation

    What the quote you used was about was showing that the palistinians ARN'T just fanatics that DESERVE to die
     

Share This Page