Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The future of the United Nations?
Topic Started: Nov 30 2004, 08:19 AM (662 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

I think DS9 just said that. I can't see France diluting it's power though. I wonder how this might be accomplished.
| Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
somerled
Dec 1 2004, 06:50 AM
doctortobe
Dec 1 2004, 04:18 AM
And what would happen to members of this military if there was a UN resolution for military action in their own country?  You realize that the countries that contributed the largest percentages of soldiers would be practically exempt from having that military force take action against them.  If ordered to attack their own country, they will give the UN the collective finger and go home to fight.

They should make some kind of oath to the Peoples of Earth and their representatives (the UN) and become regarded as "Citisens of Earth" rather than just citisens of their native countries, - so they are part of the action with their allegance to all humanity rather than one country , or they would be excluded from the action and disarmed while the action is happening (to ensure they don't mutiny and change sides).

Participation in the action by them should be made strictly voluntary on a unit by unit basis in any case.

Perhaps becoming a Citisen of Earth would become a very high honour and have great privileges - like a Citisen of Earth Passport allowing residency and working right anywhere they chose, very much reduced taxes and automatic eligibility for scholarships for their children who would automatically become citisens of Earth, etc.

Contributing forces should not exempt them from being acted against should this become necessary , granting exemptions would only lead to some very powerful countries acting against humanity with impunity, purely because of their power and influence and contribution - a bit like now.

Less powerful counties might well benefit from UN having a BIG STICK (or the BIGGEST STICK AROUND) that they are WILLING TO USE , without fear or favour. Securitywize, economically (they could tender to provide bases and infrastructure for UN garisions , fleets , and air forces) , and by establishing industries to service the UN.

The UN headquarters could also move regularly (every 5 or 10 years) and a bidding system much like that for the Olympics might be instituted so other countries have chance to share in the economic benefits of having 10s of thousands of highly paid UN beaurocrats and diplomats residing with them - they all spend money - and lots of it, are a source of international revenue, and use and purchase local goods and services (everything from toilet paper to luxury cars and homes) .
It is unreasonable that the UN headquarters remain in the USA to the USA's economic benefit. (Why else do you think no USA administration has seen fit to evict the UN from their current headquarters ? too lucrative and too good a cash-cow ).

It won't happen. Tell me somerland, what kind of incentive would you need to go bomb Sydney?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
I think the UN security force should be made up of member nations. Each nation has a separate division, so there won't be any problems with nationalism getting in the way of the desired goal. The force is lead by the Security Council, and to simplify matters, a CnC should be elected amoung the Security Council themselves.


An American division commanded by a French CnC defending Russian interests? I see no problem with nationalism. Let each country pursue its own best interests, when its interests conflict with another countries let treaties and negotiations be used. The UN is corrupt and irrelevant because it lacks accountability and is used by member nations to thwart any action.

Everything after "I think" proves you really didn't.

ANOVA
isn't it unconstitutional for the US military to serve under a foriegn commander?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
*sigh* Still insults from the peanut gallery. I shouldn't expect more. It's really sad.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I guess that I see the UN as more of a diplomatic and moderating institution, perhaps as a place for negotiating, agreeing to and ruling on international agreements and not really being capable of fulfilling a military role (including peace-keeping).

Military intervention is when nations can not agree diplomatically and/or are unwilling to be bound by rulings by the UN. I don't see a point in UN military forces. Joint military forces are more proper between alliances like NATO. The UN includes countries that are opposed rather than allied.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
My apologies. Next time I'll post a freaking research paper. :realmad:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
The Sisko
Dec 1 2004, 05:55 PM
My apologies. Next time I'll post a freaking research paper. :realmad:

Sisko,

I am thoroughly confused by this comment. :unsure: Were you addressing it to a specific person?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Yes. I am through posting in this forum however. I haven't been here all day, and out of nowhere someone decides to insult me for NO REASON.

Talk about immature.

Try getting admin to do anything about it. Not even a quick call out.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
The Sisko
Dec 1 2004, 06:02 PM
Yes. I am through posting in this forum however. I haven't been here all day, and out of nowhere someone decides to insult me for NO REASON.

Talk about immature.

Try getting admin to do anything about it. Not even a quick call out.

I am not sure about the insult, unless it was because he was trying to debunk you claims about nationalism in a less than polite way?

I wasn't even sure that it was you that he was quoting as he did not put your name on it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Official Response

Quote:
 
Everything after "I think" proves you really didn't.


This line was unnessesary. Your point could have been made without this insult. Please refrain from these comments in the future.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Official D'oh Response
doh, I equated that with the signature, but it wasn't.

Yeah, I try to put 'I think' when expressing an opinion, so that I don't get jumped on for research papers. :lol: If we can't discuss opinions, then what are we doing here?

That was insulting.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
A UN army runs into the same problem as an EU army. It would totally compromise the national soveriegnty of the member states. The EU has decided that it must settle for a rapid reaction force which would allow member states to take collective military action in situations where it is less appropriate for NATO is intervene, (the idea is that we start pulling out weight more, for example that we should have had the capacity to deal with Kosovo without the USA) but it is still made up of national militaries contributing to the force. I dont however believe it is appropriate to go even this far at a UN level. The UNSC should be able to authorise the use of force but leave it is members to carry out that forceful intervention, ala Gulf War 1.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
doctortobe
Dec 1 2004, 05:48 PM
somerled
Dec 1 2004, 06:50 AM
doctortobe
Dec 1 2004, 04:18 AM
And what would happen to members of this military if there was a UN resolution for military action in their own country?  You realize that the countries that contributed the largest percentages of soldiers would be practically exempt from having that military force take action against them.  If ordered to attack their own country, they will give the UN the collective finger and go home to fight.

They should make some kind of oath to the Peoples of Earth and their representatives (the UN) and become regarded as "Citisens of Earth" rather than just citisens of their native countries, - so they are part of the action with their allegance to all humanity rather than one country , or they would be excluded from the action and disarmed while the action is happening (to ensure they don't mutiny and change sides).

Participation in the action by them should be made strictly voluntary on a unit by unit basis in any case.

Perhaps becoming a Citisen of Earth would become a very high honour and have great privileges - like a Citisen of Earth Passport allowing residency and working right anywhere they chose, very much reduced taxes and automatic eligibility for scholarships for their children who would automatically become citisens of Earth, etc.

Contributing forces should not exempt them from being acted against should this become necessary , granting exemptions would only lead to some very powerful countries acting against humanity with impunity, purely because of their power and influence and contribution - a bit like now.

Less powerful counties might well benefit from UN having a BIG STICK (or the BIGGEST STICK AROUND) that they are WILLING TO USE , without fear or favour. Securitywize, economically (they could tender to provide bases and infrastructure for UN garisions , fleets , and air forces) , and by establishing industries to service the UN.

The UN headquarters could also move regularly (every 5 or 10 years) and a bidding system much like that for the Olympics might be instituted so other countries have chance to share in the economic benefits of having 10s of thousands of highly paid UN beaurocrats and diplomats residing with them - they all spend money - and lots of it, are a source of international revenue, and use and purchase local goods and services (everything from toilet paper to luxury cars and homes) .
It is unreasonable that the UN headquarters remain in the USA to the USA's economic benefit. (Why else do you think no USA administration has seen fit to evict the UN from their current headquarters ? too lucrative and too good a cash-cow ).

It won't happen. Tell me somerland, what kind of incentive would you need to go bomb Sydney?

Bomb Sydney ? :huh: :rolleyes: :ermm: :whistle: :ermm: the place is a mad house ! so not much . ;)

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
38957
Dec 1 2004, 08:10 AM
I wonder if it is an economic benefit to New York City to have the UN headquartered there.

So, we have the cities willing to pay the UN the biggest bribes get the headquarters? Not to mention moving this giant bureaucracy and it's staff every so often. Why don't they just buy and island from some one?

Not necessarily paying "bribes" to get the UN Headquarters

It could work the same way as the Summer and Winter Olympic Games , Commonwealth Games , where countries bid for the right to have the UN Headquarters take up residence and perhaps then , if successful in their bid , build suitable infrastructure that the UN then rents when in residence.

Why a city , and not just buy or construct an island ? well cities are better housing big organisations as much of the infrastructure and workforce is already available.
Plus it is more convenient.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
ds9074
Dec 1 2004, 07:05 PM
A UN army runs into the same problem as an EU army. It would totally compromise the national soveriegnty of the member states. The EU has decided that it must settle for a rapid reaction force which would allow member states to take collective military action in situations where it is less appropriate for NATO is intervene, (the idea is that we start pulling out weight more, for example that we should have had the capacity to deal with Kosovo without the USA) but it is still made up of national militaries contributing to the force. I dont however believe it is appropriate to go even this far at a UN level. The UNSC should be able to authorise the use of force but leave it is members to carry out that forceful intervention, ala Gulf War 1.

Then nation states might well have had their day. Only most people (and politicians in power today - don't see it or don't want to see it or admit it).

I wonder if 500 years ago the educated and ruling classes amongst people living city states (in renaisence europe) were wondering about the future of city states ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus