|
The future of the United Nations?
|
|
Topic Started: Nov 30 2004, 08:19 AM (660 Views)
|
|
somerled
|
Dec 2 2004, 02:44 AM
Post #46
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
- Posts:
- 19,451
- Group:
- Banned
- Member
- #62
- Joined:
- September 24, 2003
|
- 24thcenstfan
- Dec 1 2004, 09:46 AM
- somerled
- Dec 1 2004, 02:27 AM
- 24thcenstfan
- Nov 30 2004, 03:30 PM
I actuall like that idea. I am not comfortable with the UN having its own military force either. If the UN was streamlined and designed to act as a project manager or coordinator, instead of trying to assume many roles (roles that they are not equipped to handle…such as enforcement), then more would be achieved IMO.
Why not - isn't this exactly what the USA does in other countries. Think of all those soldiers and sailor from other countries roaming about the country side absorbing your culture and spending money. Could it be that you fear the possibility of the USA loosing it's current military supremacy if the UN had its own fully capable military that was responsible to the UN ONLY and so not under the control of one constituent / contributing nation ?
Oh I don’t know I guess it starts with the possibility that as a US Citizen a person could be committing treason if he or she (as a member of the UN Military) were to levy war against the US. Which is basically what would happen if the UN were to take action against the US. It would probably require a Constitutional change giving up supremacy rights to the UN. The legalities of that situation would be a nightmare. - US Constitution
- Article. III. , Section. 3. Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Then you would have to deal with divided loyalties, the cost to member states for helping to maintain a military force that won’t even be designed to specifically protect your boarders and where they would train (Wichita brought that point up). Yes, giving up supremacy in military matters to a transnational force does concern me. The US military exists solely to protect me, my fellow countrymen and by extension our allies. I don’t think I would ever be able to say the same about the UN military. In addition, we (the member state) would be paying to maintain this military force knowing full well that that force could be directed at us (the US) someday at the whim of the UN. There are a lot of problems associated with the UN having its own military.
That is why constituent national contingients who are called on to wage war against their own homeland would have 2 options - stand down and be (forceably if necessary) disarmed in order to avoid "conflict of interests" and the possibility of a mutiny - much like how the Roman's handled it - if my reading is accurate, or their members could individually volunteer to fight with the UN in the name of all of humanity and be dispersed amongst other contingents who do have same issue - they might act as moderators and interpretor and negotiators and thereby minimise harm to the citisenry and innocent by-standers, perhaps negotiating the standdown of opposing forces. (Soldiers have brains (don't they ?) and they may not agree personally with the orders of their commanders).
To answer Doctortobe's question - if my country was by way of its actions acting against the larger good of humanity - by waging war (against another country or even against some of it's own people) without just cause, engaging in war crimes and crimes against humanity, then that would be situation where the UN would have a mandate to take military action and perhaps even bring to bare overwhelming use of lethal force if the leadership refused to be removed from power and succumb to prosecution by some kind of beefed up War Crimes Commission or International Court of Justice.
Any nation than uses WMD of any kind , either offensively or defensively (internally or against it's neighbours or anyone else) would also be acted against immediately and overwhelmingly.
|
|
|
| |
|
doctortobe
|
Dec 2 2004, 02:59 AM
Post #47
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
- Posts:
- 5,682
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Quote:
-
That is why constituent national contingients who are called on to wage war against their own homeland would have 2 options - stand down and be (forceably disarmed if necessary) in order to avoid "conflict of interests" and the possibility of a mutiny - much like how the Roman's handled it - if my reading is accurate, or their members could individually volunteer to fight with the UN in the name of all of humanity.
So that means that the nations with large militaries will be exempt from UN action. They will make up the bulk of any UN force and taking them out of the equation will leave the force unable to touch the larger nations. Heck unless you are expecting hundreds of thousands to join this venture (fat chance) you wouldn't be able to attack the stronger countries anyway. So this UN force will therefore be nothing but an instrument to enforce UN authority on ONLY the weak nations of the world.
There are numerous other problems with such an organization.
1. Lack of force: The larger nations will never give large numbers of troops to such a force as they will not want to upset the balance of power. The best you will see would be maybe a thousand blue buckets made up of small nations.
2. Lack of funding: Just who would fund such an operation? The US? I doubt it. In fact, I don't think anybody would fund a force that had the potential to attack them.
3. Lack of technology: Just who would equip such a force? Nobody would be stupid enough to give their top of the line equipment to a group full of foreigners. I'm sure that if that were to happen the Chinese would send a small group just so they could smuggle back information and parts.
- Quote:
-
To answer Doctortobe's question - if my country was by way of its actions acting against the larger good of humanity - by waging war (against another country or even against some of it's own people) without just cause, engaging in war crimes and crimes against humanity, then that would be situation where the UN would have a mandate to take military action and perhaps even bring to bare overwhelming use of lethal force.
I bet your friends and family would be thrilled to know that you would attack their homeland.
- Quote:
-
Any nation than uses WMD of any kind , either offensively or defensively (internally or against it's neighbours or anyone else) would also be acted against immediately and overwhelmingly.
Hmm, you mean like IRAQ?!?!?!?!
|
|
|
| |
|
somerled
|
Dec 2 2004, 04:05 AM
Post #48
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
- Posts:
- 19,451
- Group:
- Banned
- Member
- #62
- Joined:
- September 24, 2003
|
- doctortobe
- Dec 2 2004, 02:59 AM
- Quote:
-
That is why constituent national contingients who are called on to wage war against their own homeland would have 2 options - stand down and be (forceably disarmed if necessary) in order to avoid "conflict of interests" and the possibility of a mutiny - much like how the Roman's handled it - if my reading is accurate, or their members could individually volunteer to fight with the UN in the name of all of humanity.
So that means that the nations with large militaries will be exempt from UN action. They will make up the bulk of any UN force and taking them out of the equation will leave the force unable to touch the larger nations. Heck unless you are expecting hundreds of thousands to join this venture (fat chance) you wouldn't be able to attack the stronger countries anyway. So this UN force will therefore be nothing but an instrument to enforce UN authority on ONLY the weak nations of the world. There are numerous other problems with such an organization. 1. Lack of force: The larger nations will never give large numbers of troops to such a force as they will not want to upset the balance of power. The best you will see would be maybe a thousand blue buckets made up of small nations. 2. Lack of funding: Just who would fund such an operation? The US? I doubt it. In fact, I don't think anybody would fund a force that had the potential to attack them. 3. Lack of technology: Just who would equip such a force? Nobody would be stupid enough to give their top of the line equipment to a group full of foreigners. I'm sure that if that were to happen the Chinese would send a small group just so they could smuggle back information and parts. - Quote:
-
To answer Doctortobe's question - if my country was by way of its actions acting against the larger good of humanity - by waging war (against another country or even against some of it's own people) without just cause, engaging in war crimes and crimes against humanity, then that would be situation where the UN would have a mandate to take military action and perhaps even bring to bare overwhelming use of lethal force.
I bet your friends and family would be thrilled to know that you would attack their homeland. - Quote:
-
Any nation than uses WMD of any kind , either offensively or defensively (internally or against it's neighbours or anyone else) would also be acted against immediately and overwhelmingly.
Hmm, you mean like IRAQ?!?!?!?!
Think about it.
Since you ask - Would Iraq have been or be an issue if such a force had existed ? (instead of the USA sitting on its hands and letting them do what did - despite inciting the revolt and then leaving them in the lerch) , and would Bush have acted the way he did if there was a more powerful force around that might have intervened ?
|
|
|
| |
|
somerled
|
Dec 2 2004, 06:41 AM
Post #49
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
- Posts:
- 19,451
- Group:
- Banned
- Member
- #62
- Joined:
- September 24, 2003
|
- doctortobe
- Dec 2 2004, 02:59 AM
- Quote:
-
That is why constituent national contingients who are called on to wage war against their own homeland would have 2 options - stand down and be (forceably disarmed if necessary) in order to avoid "conflict of interests" and the possibility of a mutiny - much like how the Roman's handled it - if my reading is accurate, or their members could individually volunteer to fight with the UN in the name of all of humanity.
So that means that the nations with large militaries will be exempt from UN action. They will make up the bulk of any UN force and taking them out of the equation will leave the force unable to touch the larger nations. Heck unless you are expecting hundreds of thousands to join this venture (fat chance) you wouldn't be able to attack the stronger countries anyway. So this UN force will therefore be nothing but an instrument to enforce UN authority on ONLY the weak nations of the world. There are numerous other problems with such an organization. 1. Lack of force: The larger nations will never give large numbers of troops to such a force as they will not want to upset the balance of power. The best you will see would be maybe a thousand blue buckets made up of small nations. 2. Lack of funding: Just who would fund such an operation? The US? I doubt it. In fact, I don't think anybody would fund a force that had the potential to attack them. 3. Lack of technology: Just who would equip such a force? Nobody would be stupid enough to give their top of the line equipment to a group full of foreigners. I'm sure that if that were to happen the Chinese would send a small group just so they could smuggle back information and parts. - Quote:
-
To answer Doctortobe's question - if my country was by way of its actions acting against the larger good of humanity - by waging war (against another country or even against some of it's own people) without just cause, engaging in war crimes and crimes against humanity, then that would be situation where the UN would have a mandate to take military action and perhaps even bring to bare overwhelming use of lethal force.
I bet your friends and family would be thrilled to know that you would attack their homeland. - Quote:
-
Any nation than uses WMD of any kind , either offensively or defensively (internally or against it's neighbours or anyone else) would also be acted against immediately and overwhelmingly.
Hmm, you mean like IRAQ?!?!?!?!
Ask a rhetorical question - expect a rhetorical answer.
Considering I am not in the ADF and I am a passivist - then I find it very amusing that you think I would use anything other than words or civil disobediance to attack my homeland (actually its leaders).
|
|
|
| |
|
24thcenstfan
|
Dec 2 2004, 11:13 AM
Post #50
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
- Posts:
- 21,481
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- somerled
- Dec 2 2004, 02:44 AM
- 24thcenstfan
- Dec 1 2004, 09:46 AM
- somerled
- Dec 1 2004, 02:27 AM
- 24thcenstfan
- Nov 30 2004, 03:30 PM
I actuall like that idea. I am not comfortable with the UN having its own military force either. If the UN was streamlined and designed to act as a project manager or coordinator, instead of trying to assume many roles (roles that they are not equipped to handle…such as enforcement), then more would be achieved IMO.
Why not - isn't this exactly what the USA does in other countries. Think of all those soldiers and sailor from other countries roaming about the country side absorbing your culture and spending money. Could it be that you fear the possibility of the USA loosing it's current military supremacy if the UN had its own fully capable military that was responsible to the UN ONLY and so not under the control of one constituent / contributing nation ?
Oh I don’t know I guess it starts with the possibility that as a US Citizen a person could be committing treason if he or she (as a member of the UN Military) were to levy war against the US. Which is basically what would happen if the UN were to take action against the US. It would probably require a Constitutional change giving up supremacy rights to the UN. The legalities of that situation would be a nightmare. - US Constitution
- Article. III. , Section. 3. Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Then you would have to deal with divided loyalties, the cost to member states for helping to maintain a military force that won’t even be designed to specifically protect your boarders and where they would train (Wichita brought that point up). Yes, giving up supremacy in military matters to a transnational force does concern me. The US military exists solely to protect me, my fellow countrymen and by extension our allies. I don’t think I would ever be able to say the same about the UN military. In addition, we (the member state) would be paying to maintain this military force knowing full well that that force could be directed at us (the US) someday at the whim of the UN. There are a lot of problems associated with the UN having its own military.
That is why constituent national contingients who are called on to wage war against their own homeland would have 2 options - stand down and be (forceably if necessary) disarmed in order to avoid "conflict of interests" and the possibility of a mutiny - much like how the Roman's handled it - if my reading is accurate, or their members could individually volunteer to fight with the UN in the name of all of humanity and be dispersed amongst other contingents who do have same issue - they might act as moderators and interpretor and negotiators and thereby minimise harm to the citisenry and innocent by-standers, perhaps negotiating the standdown of opposing forces. (Soldiers have brains (don't they ?) and they may not agree personally with the orders of their commanders).
You are still asking UN soldiers to be prepared to act against their own country in some capacity. Either by remaining a member of a group that is attacking their homeland, or by acting as a moderator in some other fashion. It is still a major conflict of interest.
|
|
|
| |