The United Nations is forming an army! [Archive]

scooter_the_shooter

06-20-2006, 18:21

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?s=pf&page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/15/114719.shtml?s=ic

United Nations ‘Army’ Proposed

Crisis management experts are calling for the creation of a "United Nations army” – an international rapid reaction force that could be deployed within 48 hours to intervene in emergency situations around the globe.

Composed of up to 15,000 military, police and civilian staff, including medics, the proposed force would be recruited from professionals hired by the U.N. from many countries, and based at designated U.N. sites.

Its actions would be authorized by the U.N. Security Council, according to the Toronto Star.

"It's not a new idea, but it has now come into its own," said Peter Langille of University of Western Ontario, one of the major contributors to the book "A United Nations Emergency Peace Service: To Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity,” which will be presented at the U.N. on Friday.

"With countries moving away from U.N. peacekeeping, and troops overstretched in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, (the rapid reaction force) has new appeal."

The idea of a U.N. emergency force was first given serious thought in 1994, in the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide. But at that time, the U.S. was concerned that the force would become an out-of-control "U.N. army," and developing countries felt threatened by what they feared could be an interventionist force directed by the West.

But University of Notre Dame political scientist Robert Johansen, the book's chief writer, says a U.N. force could help prevent horrendous conflict such as the Rwanda genocide and the current crisis in Darfur.

"With an independent force at their disposal, and no obligation to send in their own troops, the Security Council's often squabbling members would have less reason to drag out debates about when to intervene in crises,” the Star reports.

The new emergency force could cost $2 billion to establish, less than the wars that have plagued Africa and Asia in recent years. "A U.N. agency would for the first time in history offer a rapid, comprehensive, internationally legitimate response to crisis, enabling it to save hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars through early and often preventive action," the book states.

But experts say there are serious obstacles to overcome before the rapid reaction force could be created.

"The concept is sound but it would depend on who was willing to join up and ante up," says Canadian Col. Pat Strogan, vice-president of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre.

"If there weren't reluctance on the part of countries to contribute in the past, it might have taken root by now."

.........................................................................

This is a terrible thing IMO they've already proved they're a bunch corrupt, incompetent, power grabbers. God help us if they give these yahoos an army. (they'll use it for more then peace keeping:no: )

First it'll be 15 thousand then that won't be enough so they get another 7000....and so on:inquisitive:

I can see it now "the USA has not followed *insert useless resolution that most of the country disagrees with* so we are sending the UN into restore peace and order"

The USA had an earth quake we are sending in our peace keeping force.

The USA did not follow our global gun ban (they're working on one...the meeting is on july 4th) we are sending in our army to get these small arms out of the hands of american citizens.

Take your pick but it'll happen if these people get their army:help:

(they'll use it to bully other countries, bottom line.)

Devastatin Dave

06-20-2006, 18:39

The UN... an Army? Oh my....

LOL:laugh4:

lars573

06-20-2006, 18:45

This is a terrible thing IMO they've already proved they're a bunch corrupt, incompetent, power grabbers. God help us if they give these yahoos an army. (they'll use it for more then peace keeping:no: )

First it'll be 15 thousand then that won't be enough so they get another 7000....and so on:inquisitive:

I can see it now "the USA has not followed *insert useless resolution that most of the country disagrees with* so we are sending the UN into restore peace and order"

The USA had an earth quake we are sending in our peace keeping force.

The USA did not follow our global gun ban (they're working on one...the meeting is on july 4th) we are sending in our army to get these small arms out of the hands of american citizens.

Take your pick but it'll happen if these people get their army:help:

(they'll use it to bully other countries, bottom line.)
Your senario is complete crap. Permanent members of the sercuirty council (like umm the US :idea2: ) can block a resolution by voting no. I see this as a positive step in making the UN work better. One of it's big problems is that no one wants to send their boys before things get out of control. So the UN having it's own military force to send is good.

scooter_the_shooter

06-20-2006, 18:57

I'm aware that the US can veto but if they wanted to get at us do you think they would follow it? They're corrupt and they'll do what they can for another power grab.

Ser Clegane

06-20-2006, 19:01

L'Impresario

06-20-2006, 19:19

Rapid reaction forces are just that. Given the current trend in the human rights scene, the most effective approach the UN can afford is a RRF.
The EU has also the ERRF (European Rapid Reaction Force - amongst them Eurofor and Eurocorps) and it's only natural that international organisations with a humanitarian charter will follow such steps. Petersberg-type missions seem a steady concern for western states lately.
I somehow see that there 'll be a lack of political will to carry a UN RRF in the end though.

BTW I wouldn't worry about the US. They can really be exempt from whatever they wish, and at Human Rights they excel heh
I wonder what Eleanor Roosevelt would say about exceptionalism.

Tribesman

06-20-2006, 19:24

The USA did not follow our global gun ban (they're working on one...the meeting is on july 4th) we are sending in our army to get these small arms out of the hands of american citizens.

Errrrr....Ceasar ere you sure about that :inquisitive: , the conference is about the illegal arms trade and it isn't sitting on the 4th July , thats a holiday dontyaknow:laugh4:
Would you like to read the agenda , the proposal , the preliminary meeting to set the agenda and the proposal , or anything really , before you talk about it ?
It might be a good idea to try it sometime . It saves you going off half cocked~;)

lars573

06-20-2006, 19:46

I'm aware that the US can veto but if they wanted to get at us do you think they would follow it? They're corrupt and they'll do what they can for another power grab.
Well the UN is based in NY close to Washington DC. Maybe the US federal government pratices are rubbing off on them.

rotorgun

06-20-2006, 20:00

A rapid reaction force eh? And who, for the love of Mike, will fund it? I'm sure that the United States will be asked to provide a lion's share of the money for such a force. I doubt we could get many politicians to support such a measure here in the States. I certainly won't fall in line behind it. There are just too many questions it raises, like who will provide the leadership, or what problems will arise from the wealthier nations trying to get control of it for their own agendas? If the world had a government we could all agree on, then it could be the right thing to do, but this will never come about IMHO without divine intervention.

Joker85

06-20-2006, 20:13

So basically the UN wants to form a massive merc army with no loyalty to any nation or cause to go plopping itself down in hotspots around the world.

How could that possibly go wrong? :no:

scooter_the_shooter

06-20-2006, 20:26

AntiochusIII

06-20-2006, 20:37

Time for Conspiracy theories and daily UN-bashing, eh? :2thumbsup:

Spetulhu

06-20-2006, 20:50

Time for Conspiracy theories and daily UN-bashing, eh? :2thumbsup:

Hey, it's a well-known fact that the UN is planning to take over the world. There's a lot of US-based militias with proof of this. They've got the photos and films to prove that there are UN arms depots and concentration camps ready on US soil, just waiting for the offensive. All true gun-toting 'mericans will be executed or dragged to a re-education camp by the massive UN army when that day comes. :laugh4:

edit: 666 posts! :scared:

Tribesman

06-20-2006, 20:59

BS I"ve been to their sites and seen what they're talking about.

I'll be back with the right links.
Yeah right :dizzy2:
The UN conference to review progress made in the implementation of actionto prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects , sitting from June 26th-July 7th , with a day off on the 4th July:book: :book: :book: :book:
So come back with your links Ceasar , as what you claimed .....The USA did not follow our global gun ban (they're working on one...the meeting is on july 4th) we are sending in our army to get these small arms out of the hands of american citizens.
is not true , and what you claimed was BS....the conference is about the illegal arms trade and it isn't sitting on the 4th July , thats a holiday dontyaknow
is true .

BTW as for the main topic , do note that it is not the UN proposing this , though the inquiry into the failings in rwanda did put forward a similar suggestion , as did the US ambassador to the UN(rotorgun might be pleased to know that he was the one who did the deal that meant that you give less money to the UN ) , and funnily enough the US house has proposed it too , twice already this century , but it didn't get enough votes .

Lemur

06-20-2006, 21:20

I've always wondered why mercs don't get used in places like Darfur and Rwanda, you know, places that have no strategic interest to the great powers. Why shouldn't we pay some enterprising fellows to go in and sort things out?

A woman I worked with was kvetching about our behavior during the Rwandan genocide. I asked her, "Look at Orlando over there. Would you be okay seeing him killed, maybe tortured to death to stop that from happening?"

"No," she said.

"Are there any young men in here you'd be okay having die to stop the genocide? Because that's what it would take. Our young men and women on the ground, and you can bet some of them would die horribly."

"No," she repeated.

"And that's the problem," I said. "We don't like to see these horrible things happen, but we don't want top sacrifice our sons and daughters to stop them."

And that got me thinking -- why not mercs? I know they make governments nervous, but they would probably be 1,000 times more efficient than anything the U.N. could put together.

Thoughts?

Somebody Else

06-20-2006, 21:53

I quite like the idea. An army in theory dedicated to something higher than mere nationalism. Or are we still all infatuated with our vaunted independence as separate political entities?

I keep hearing of the UN being derided for being powerless. So let it have an army. As is, unless the US gets involved, an major alliance is required to effect any sort of military action.

Mercenaries - well, they're not actually all that cheap - necessarily - and besides, there's always the loyalty issue - granted - these days, not really a problem I shouldn't think. But why not an army that takes an oath to serve the interests of, well, humanity?

L'Impresario

06-20-2006, 21:57

Handling a humanitarian crisis is a task much more complex than to be resolved by mere "mercs". You can't simply isolate the military part from the entirety of the mission. Soldiers alone won't be very helpful in the significant variety of critical situations. You will also need to have a decent degree of accountability in such cases, the responsibility is just too great.
That's why you need "rapid reaction", so that you'll tackle the problem before it escalates, and while it's still manageable. Should the initial efforts yield unsatisfactory results, the prime objective shouldn't be "to kill the bad guys", but to contain the conflict and cater to the victims. This is an observation that has to do with the nature of Petersburg-oriented missions, which most of the time have to handle an ethnic conflict/ civil war.

scooter_the_shooter

06-20-2006, 21:59

Right from the monster itself.

note this one says "regulation of gun in civilian hands" Which is PC talk for "take them away"

http://www.iansa.org/media/releases/IANSA-report-press-release.pdf

http://www.iansa.org/members/IANSA-media-briefing-low-res.pdf read the part in page 2 in red...they're not biased now are they:laugh4: It also says they want global "guidelines" (sounds like restrictions to me) on civilian use

I used to have one short one, that really put the nail in the coffin. Until I find it (and I will) these will have to do. (There are literally hundreds like the ones I posted above! those are just a sample. look for yourself) http://www.iansa.org/

I am going to ask if any one has a link to it at one of the gun sites I visit.(I'm not looking through literally thousands of hits, when I know I won't change your mind)

Here is the search engine I was using.

http://secap480.un.org/search?access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=utf8&client=UN_Website_English&num=10&site=un_org&oe=utf8&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_English&proxycustom=%3CHOME/%3E

It's like google for the UN

And I'll admit I was wrong about the july 4th thing (why the NRA said that I do not know)

Atilius

06-20-2006, 22:09

I've always wondered why mercs don't get used in places like Darfur and Rwanda, you know, places that have no strategic interest to the great powers. Why shouldn't we pay some enterprising fellows to go in and sort things out?

Lemur,

You're in good company - by my lights at least. Take a look at this (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/281dahek.asp). I don't want to underestimate the opportunities for abuse, but chaos is usually worse than tyranny.

Tribesman

06-20-2006, 22:31

I am going to ask if any one has a link to it at one of the gun sites I visit.(I'm not looking through literally thousands of hits, when I know I won't change your mind)

Oh I see , so you are not talking about the UN conference on the illegal arms trade then:oops:
Instead of looking through thousands of hits , why not just go to the UN site , and look for the title of the conference as it is (I did write it out in full for you , and gave the dates ) , not some fanciful "UN plans to come and sieze my guns" , you might find it work better:idea2:

And I'll admit I was wrong about the july 4th thing (why the NRA said that I do not know)
Well the NRA might have said it ....because they are the NRA .:juggle2: Not really a reliable source of information , no more than iansa is a reliable source .

BTW , change my mind on what ?
That the UN is having a conference on its progress in dealing with issues involving the illegal arms trade , or that the UN is forming an army of mercenaries who are going to come and take my gun away and take over the world?:inquisitive:

Watchman

06-20-2006, 22:42

15,000 ? I'm guessing that's including all the support and adminstrative guys. So what can you conquer with the actual combat troops that leaves you with ? Monaco and Andorra ? Bloody Estonia is probably way too big to take over with a force of that size...
:dizzy2:
Silly UNphobes.

(they'll use it to bully other countries, bottom line.)...and this would make them different from standard national armies how...? At least these guys would need to be given their marching orders by a rough consensus of state governements...

Husar

06-20-2006, 22:48

This is a terrible thing IMO they've already proved they're a bunch corrupt, incompetent, power grabbers. God help us if they give these yahoos an army. (they'll use it for more then peace keeping:no: )
And of course the US uses it´s army only for peacekeeping, right?:juggle2:
Besides, everybody critsizes the UN for being slow, now they want to get an army to be faster and then it´s again wrong.:dizzy2:

Lemur

06-20-2006, 22:52

You're in good company - by my lights at least. Take a look at this (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/281dahek.asp). I don't want to underestimate the opportunities for abuse, but chaos is usually worse than tyranny.
Not a bad editorial, and the author certainly has the U.N. all-talk-no-action down pat.

I was thinking specifically of what went down in Sierra Leone with Executive Outcomes. I've been Googling for a good account for over sixty seconds, without finding much. This (http://www.hoosier84.com/salone/slburns.html) is a summation:

The South African private military company (PMC) Executive Outcomes virtually won the war back in 1997 but international pressure forced them to leave. Since then, more than ten thousand Sierra Leoneans have died as a direct result of the resumption of the brutal war.

Calls for a return of an Executive Outcomes-type company are strong, not just among Sierra Leoneans but also—off the record—among British and even UN personnel. From a military standpoint, ending the war in Sierra Leone is not a difficult proposition. PMCs have indicated that Sierra Leone could be secured in a matter of months with a few hundred professional soldiers—at a fraction of the cost of the current UN mission. Questions of transparency and accountability would have to be addressed first, but these issues seem trivial compared to the problems UNAMSIL is facing. The choice is between utilising a PMC to end the war, or watching the impotent UNAMSIL continue to dither while thousands more Sierra Leoneans die.

The mercenary option seems quite compelling to this Lemur. You use the mercs to end the fighting, then send in the U.N. and N.G.O.'s to provide basic human services. The whole operation need not be terribly expensive.

Tribesman

06-20-2006, 22:55

L'Impresario

06-20-2006, 23:07

I'll say again that it's a bad idea. Sorry that I don't have the time to provide all the gory details, but I've done a bit of research about this conflict a year ago and things aren't as simple, esp. at the point the mercs were hired. You might want to see who hired Executive Outcomes and what they 've been involved in. Then you got to answer the question of whether one wants to legitimize the intervention of private interests in the realm of sovereign nations and legal international actors by having the UN support the deployment of such forces.

Redleg

06-20-2006, 23:11

The mercenary option seems quite compelling to this Lemur. You use the mercs to end the fighting, then send in the U.N. and N.G.O.'s to provide basic human services. The whole operation need not be terribly expensive.

Here is the basic problem with Mercs - they are not considered a legimate military force for use on the battlefield. Mercs have a tendency to be hung or shot out of hand when captured by opposing forces in the combat zone.

For the United Nations to hire Merc forces as part of the peacekeeping operations - is not a bad idea - but the international implications will have to be worked out first.

BTW I am not against an United Nations peacekeeping - Rapid Deployment Force - for the simple reason that for it to be a peacekeeping force the waring parties have had to ask for it through a United Nations brokered (SP) peace arrangement. All in all not a bad idea to have a package that is immediately available for deployment was the peace deal is struck - doesn't give them a much of a chance to change their minds. It actually makes better sense then the current method which takes monthes to get troops and committments together to fulfil the peacekeeping requirment.

Maybe instead of Mercs the United Nations creates its own security outfit chartered by the United Nations Security council- and based in Geneva to give it the illusion of a purely neutral force.

scooter_the_shooter

06-21-2006, 00:05

Ceasar , its last years conference , but you might find #10interesting

http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2005/bms_faq_e.pdf

unless you are an illegal arms dealer or manufacturer of illegal weapons then the conference has nothing whatsoever to do with you .

You dont get it, they want all the guns gone. They say just illegal ones...but if you look they hint at all privately owned firearms. It's a slippery slope. This meeting is just one small step.

It isn't just the convention I'm talking about, it's the whole UN.

Soulforged

06-21-2006, 00:09

Your senario is complete crap. Permanent members of the sercuirty council (like umm the US :idea2: ) can block a resolution by voting no. I see this as a positive step in making the UN work better. One of it's big problems is that no one wants to send their boys before things get out of control. So the UN having it's own military force to send is good.IMO it's not a good idea. The UN is an organization for the peace and for mantaining community, having an army will allow the UN to start acting like any other state or even a world police. That's not good. Improving the UN and following it's decisions are a question of prudence not of force.

Papewaio

06-21-2006, 00:10

It's 15,000 peacekeepers who cannot be deployed against France, China, Britain, Russia or US. In fact if would probably provide employment for a lot of their retired soldiers rather then becoming mercs.

A well trained and coordinated peacekeeping force under the Security council might provide a core that would be professional enough and have a united command structure that would help minimise problems and hence casualities.

It could also be done by rotating out entire units from the UN members on a yearly basis. So that you have guys who train with other peacekeepers before they have to actually go to a conflict situation.

Tribesman

06-21-2006, 00:35

You dont get it, they want all the guns gone. They say just illegal ones...but if you look they hint at all privately owned firearms. It's a slippery slope. This meeting is just one small step.

Oh well , creationists one day , guns the next:help:
The "evidence" you supply does not support your positon , it is biased and counterfactual .

BTW , any chance of changing the title of the topic ?

The United Nations is forming an army!
should read as.....
A group of individuals has suggested that it might be an idea if member States authorised a standing force under the auspices of the UN to speed things up (shock horror)

scooter_the_shooter

06-21-2006, 00:43

[B]]

The "evidence" you supply does not support your positon , it is biased and counterfactual .

My sources are the UN itself:wall: where'd you come up with that?

Also Would the NRA be raising so much hell about this if it wasn't a threat. (they are not an anti UN right wing organization, they'll support almost anyone if they're pro gun.)

Any way if you (or anyone else) wanna' continue this through pm fine by me. But I've steered my own thread off topic enough.

Tribesman

06-21-2006, 01:04

My sources are the UN itself
Nope , your sources are a pro firearm lobby , and an anti firearm lobby .
The UN meeting is about the illicit arms trade .

Watchman

06-21-2006, 01:06

You dont get it, they want all the guns gone. They say just illegal ones...but if you look they hint at all privately owned firearms. It's a slippery slope. This meeting is just one small step....and where'd you find this in, anyway ? I actually spent the effort to look through all the links in the thread thus far, and cannot say I saw anything of the sort.

I'm smelling some pretty tendentious reading here.

Crazed Rabbit

06-21-2006, 01:20

:inquisitive:

Please try less sugar in your cereal...

I think he has the right amount:
http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/

Here's what came of the earlier one (2001):
http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/poa.html

Note 9 & 10.

9. Reaffirming the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence in accordance with
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations,

10. Reaffirming also the right of each State to manufacture, import and retain small arms and light weapons for its self-defence and security needs, as well as for its capacity to participate in peacekeeping operations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

There is no right to self defense or possession of small arms by individual people, only states.

Note the begining of Part II:

2. To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons, in order to prevent illegal manufacture of and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, or their diversion to unauthorized recipients.

3. To adopt and implement, in the States that have not already done so, the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offences under their domestic law the illegal manufacture, possession, stockpiling and trade of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction, in order to ensure that those engaged in such activities can be prosecuted under appropriate national penal codes.

I ask you, how can small arms trade be illicit if it is not a crime in a country? Because the UN thinks of all private manufacture, possession, trade, etc. as illicit.

They want to have all arms made with certain markings, and criminalize possession of arms that are not marked (7 & 8).

They want to consficate and destroy private arms (16).

But this is not enough for some. Look at the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), a NGO with a big voice at the UN:
http://www.iansa.org/un/review2006/prepcom.htm

At the PrepCom, UN Member States will decide the agenda of the high-level Review Conference in June, ie which solutions to the problem of gun violence are open for discussion.

A number of issues were dropped from the text of the PoA in 2001, including

* regulating civilian possession of guns,
* arms transfers to non-state actors,
* and tough regulation of arms brokers.

Experience over the last five years shows that these elements are vital to effective implementation of the PoA, and this must now be recognised.

And this memo from the director of IANSA:
http://www.iansa.org/news/2004/july/iht_letter.htm

Small arms abound
Rebecca Peters
IHT
8 July 2004

Access to surface-to-air missiles by armed groups is but one of the frightening aspects of the leakage of small arms from states to nonstate actors

She does not like 'nonstate', i.e. civilian arms possession.

Look at their position on Civilian arms possession, and how the UN is involved (pdf)
http://www.iansa.org/un/review2006/National-regulation-of-small-arms.pdf
They want to end civilian ownership of arms, and recommend banning civilian possession of arms, along with a laundry list of other reprehensible proposals.

It also says how the UN came very close to endorsing their ideas at the 2001 conference.

Crazed Rabbit

Louis VI the Fat

06-21-2006, 01:26

mercs

Thoughts?Why not, eh? I've often wondered about this too. Why shouldn't we outsource parts of the army? It's cheaper to train and pay 100.000 Indians for peacekeeping missions than it is to use American / NATO / EU forces.

I'm not fond about the idea of using them because they're more 'disposable' than us.

@CaesarAK47 - you're right, mate! All your guns are belong to us. You'd better rush to the hills of Idaho quickly and join one of them para-military groups before it's too late...

We're all merely waiting for the right time to come and disarm you. Once we've taken away your guns, nothing is gonna stop the invasion. Your enslavement is near... :skull:

scooter_the_shooter

06-21-2006, 02:10

They want tougher gun laws in turkey now. (I know I said I'd leave but what the heck)

http://www.iansa.org/campaigns_events/rally-turkey.htm

also from their site

Tell President Bush to Keep His Promise
In 2000, George W. Bush said "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society." Now it's time for the President to match his words with action. It's time for him to call on Congress to renew and strengthen the federal Assault Weapons Ban.

If you don't think they want our guns...your crazy!

I don't need biased sources...the UN speaks for itself:2thumbsup:

scooter_the_shooter

06-21-2006, 02:12

@CaesarAK47 - you're right, mate! All your guns are belong to us. You'd better rush to the hills of Idaho quickly and join one of them para-military groups before it's too late...

We're all merely waiting for the right time to come and disarm you. Once we've taken away your guns, nothing is gonna stop the invasion. Your enslavement is near... :skull:

Probably not to far from the truth:help:

Patriarch of Constantinople

06-21-2006, 02:33

Didnt they have "peace troops" during the israeli-egyptian war over syria?

AntiochusIII

06-21-2006, 02:42

Didnt they have "peace troops" during the israeli-egyptian war over syria?Israeli-Egyptian war over Syria? :inquisitive: Which one?

Crazed Rabbit

06-21-2006, 03:38

Perhaps he meant the war over Sinai.

Crazed Rabbit

Atilius

06-21-2006, 05:15

I've been looking around for more information on this. Global Policy Forum has a large number of articles here (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/reform/standby.htm), including the Toronto Star article (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/reform/2006/0615army.htm)referred to in caesar010's original post.

Here's the second paragraph of the Toronto Star article:

Composed of up to 15,000 military, police and civilian staff, including medics and conflict transformation experts, it would be recruited from professionals hired by the UN from many countries, and based at designated UN sites. Its actions would be authorized by the UN Security Council

Conflict transformation experts? I'd like a rifle instead, please...

If the military component of this force is "recruited from professionals hired by the UN from many countries" I think they can reasonably be called mercenaries.

The very first paragraph concludes

...an international rapid reaction force that could be deployed within 48 hours of a green light from the United Nations.

If this actually means putting 15,000 people on the ground in a crisis area anywhere in the world within 48 hours, an unrealistic increase in capability is being called for. The UN's existing (and much smaller) Standby High Readiness Brigade (http://www.shirbrig.dk/shirbrig/html/main.htm)has a reaction time of 15-30 days. I think the US military would find it difficult to put 15,000 troops anywhere on the planet in 2 days.

Ja'chyra

06-21-2006, 09:05

Ser Clegane

06-21-2006, 10:11

I think he has the right amount:
http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/
Hardly - the idea that a "UN Army" would plan to invade the US to enforce a ban of small arms, suggests that somebody suffers from a complete disconnect to reality and blows something out-of-proportion.

This "the-rest-of-the-world-is-conspiring-to-take-away-my-toys" is getting slightly ridiculous

Fragony

06-21-2006, 10:20

Dumbest idea ever. If two UN countries get into a row the UN will be devided, and we will end up fighting eachother before we are fighting the enemy. Armies should be national.

Watchman

06-21-2006, 10:22

They want tougher gun laws in turkey now. (I know I said I'd leave but what the heck)

http://www.iansa.org/campaigns_events/rally-turkey.htm

also from their site

If you don't think they want our guns...your crazy!

I don't need biased sources...the UN speaks for itself:2thumbsup:This is what I meant with "tendentious reading". A few activists from the UK go to Turkey to take part in a local demonstration for more responsible handling of firearms (for the record, I've often wondered if the apparently fairly widespread Middle Eastern custom of blasting into air during festivities, demonstrations and so on with Kalashnikovs doesn't cause occasional deaths and injuries - those bullets come down eventually, right ?) - and this is apparently proof the IANSA and the UN "want your guns".

Su-u-u-u-ure. Sounds about credible as the deductive leap that makes wanting to get rid of and control illegal firearms (which, if I recall correctly, is more or less what the pro-gun crowd offers as means of curtailing "irresponsible" and unethical use of firearms too...) equate wanting to abolish "all privately owned firearms".

How'd that one recent ad go ? "Can't? Fake it." :dizzy2:

I must also say I find the odd tendency to equate the IANSA's programme with the UN rather perplexing, and again not a little tendentious. The two are entirely different organisations, and I sincerely doubt if one NGO could actually have all that much of an effect on the policies of the UN. Unless, of course, what they're pushing is widely enough regarded as a good and wholesome enough idea to be taken seriously and put on the agenda, but in that case it's majority democracy in action isn't it...?

Spetulhu

06-21-2006, 10:52

I ask you, how can small arms trade be illicit if it is not a crime in a country? Because the UN thinks of all private manufacture, possession, trade, etc. as illicit.

They want to have all arms made with certain markings, and criminalize possession of arms that are not marked.

Selling guns to warring countries is a crime in most of the civilized world. Well, it's criminal unless the pay-off is really good. Or we sell to someone who's usually friendly to us, and they say it's not really a war. :dizzy2:

So if those guns were clearly marked the corporations could be given a whack on the head. But of course, it's part of the American dream to let corporations do whatever they can to get a profit. Say no to marked guns! :skull:

Husar

06-21-2006, 12:22

This "the-rest-of-the-world-is-conspiring-to-take-away-my-toys" is getting slightly ridiculous
I agree completely.:2thumbsup:

scooter_the_shooter

06-21-2006, 15:49

If you don't want me talking about this here, I'll go somewhere else.

The UN wants to get the guns, you all know it; but won't admit it.

Vladimir

06-21-2006, 16:03

So if those guns were clearly marked the corporations could be given a whack on the head. But of course, it's part of the American dream to let corporations do whatever they can to get a profit. Say no to marked guns! :skull:

You mean like Japan Inc., the merger of business and government that reactionaries were convinced would take over the world? Just remember when you look at the numbers the teeth-to-tail ratio is most likely going to favor the tail (logistics, support, etc).

Tribesman

06-21-2006, 16:42

The UN wants to get the guns, you all know it; but won't admit it.
errr..and the amish have already taken over Canada:dizzy2:
(Edit by Ser Clegane: removal of personal attacks)

I don't need biased sources...the UN speaks for itself
yet you do not cite UN sources , you either cite pro gun or anti gun websites.
Rabbit however does cite UN sources , that do not support his position at all :inquisitive: perhaps he didn't read them or perhaps he feels that anyone anywhere should be able to buy a shoulder launched anti aircraft missile with no regulation and no accountability .
As surely the proposed international agreement on illegal arms sales is only a really clever cover to take a farmers shotgun away :dizzy2:

Well, it's criminal unless the pay-off is really good.
Would you like to take Mugabe as an example Spethulu . it might be a nice example that shows up the problems concerning the illicit arms trade , but of course failing that you could always use the mythical Al-Qaida or the real IRA (or the continuity or original or official or provisional or the I can't believe it is the.....) , then perhaps you might want to mention thre Jangaweed or whatever they are called , possibly even the Lords Army or the judean peoples popular front .
But it won't make any difference , gun nuts is gun nuts , any legislation concerning firearms is a direct assault on their rights to shoot foxes , or overthrow their government( whichever is more impotant at the time)

yesdachi

06-21-2006, 19:33

I think the UN should have a clone army or maybe a droid army!
Da…da da da daaa da… da da da daaa da… da da da daaaaa

The_Mark

06-21-2006, 21:17

Watchman

06-21-2006, 21:25

The UN wants to get the guns, you all know it; but won't admit it.Nope. Not without being something that starts approaching credible proof of any such plans and intents, and not merely blatantly malicious and borderline paranoid hyperboles that, by what I can tell, invent meanings to suit their purposes that the original texts quite simply do not contain.

Logical sustainability is a requirement, too.

If you don't want me talking about this here, I'll go somewhere else.I'm pretty sure there's a word for this.
:shame:
:idea2:
Ah, yes. "Infantile tantrum."

Kralizec

06-21-2006, 22:54

In principle, it's not a bad idea. The UN is dependent on countries for its money (and the US has no small share), so I can't really imagine it growing out of control under realistic circumstances.
It should be loosely modeled after the Foreign Legion. Units composed out of people from different countries, a good salary and a nice retirement settlement. In the event of casualties, there wouldn't be a nationalist outrage anywhere.

I see some practical considerations however. Raising 15.000 soldiers is one thing, but you also require military hardware for transportation, armoured verhicles etc. I think that in practice this force could supply the soldiers for a mission, but will always be dependent on a willing nation to provide support.

Lemur

06-21-2006, 23:00

I'll say again that it's a bad idea. Sorry that I don't have the time to provide all the gory details, but I've done a bit of research about this conflict a year ago and things aren't as simple, esp. at the point the mercs were hired.
I'd be fascinated to hear more, when you have the time. My impression -- based on some documentaries and light reading -- was that a few hundred mercenaries shut down a civil war in a short time frame. On the surface it certainly looks impressive.

I'll be happy to do my own reading if you could just furnish me with some links. Google has been very unhelpful in trying to find a detailed, reputable account of Sierra Leone's brush with Executive Outcomes.

Watchman

06-21-2006, 23:09

Although I'm hardly expert or even particularly well-informed on that topic, I'm under the strong impression the EO and similar Cold War stooge mercenary armies (by now wholly extinct, AFAIK) tended to have pretty ugly reputations for pretty good reasons. Let me put it this way: what kinds of people can you imagine making a living (dare I say killing ?) by getting stuck in various messy African brushfire conflicts, civil wars, coups, resource fights and sundry happy stuff that inspired the chestnut "no news is good news" ? Nevermind now their paymasters.

Not particularly nice, morally upstanding or scrupulous people, that's for certain. Any such that get into that life aren't going to stay that way too long either - as the saying goes, sleep with gangsters and one day you wake up a gangster.

Quid

06-21-2006, 23:14

Sort of all sounds like Clancy's Rainbow Six to me...

Quid

JAG

06-21-2006, 23:46

I think on the whole the idea of a 'UN army' is not only a good one which can work but something needed to solve some of the problems with the UN. The UN badly needs this kind of force so it can be active rather than passive when it comes to international breaches of human rights or genocides, etc. About time really.

Crazed Rabbit

06-22-2006, 00:23

Hardly - the idea that a "UN Army" would plan to invade the US to enforce a ban of small arms, suggests that somebody suffers from a complete disconnect to reality and blows something out-of-proportion.

This "the-rest-of-the-world-is-conspiring-to-take-away-my-toys" is getting slightly ridiculous

Perhaps I should have made clear I was refering to the fact that the UN does want to ban private gun ownership- I too do not forsee a UN invasion. I think it is likely, however, that the UN could persuade a democrat pres, with control of congress, to try and pass a UN endorsed ban. Their chance of success would depend on events of the time, and how strongly Americans reacted.

I think on the whole the idea of a 'UN army' is not only a good one which can work but something needed to solve some of the problems with the UN. The UN badly needs this kind of force so it can be active rather than passive when it comes to international breaches of human rights or genocides, etc. About time really.

Unfortunately, this will not solve the UN problem of inaction. It is its fundamental flaw: gathering so many countries will mean not all agree, and one will probably have veto power on the security council (See China's footdragging on Darfur). Making direction of the UN army subject to a (large) majority vote of all members would allow them to bully smaller nations. Not likely, but a concern.

And who would make up the soldiers? Most of the UN's passionate supporters would, I think, be less inclined than average to fight (after all, they support the UN, which is supposed to end wars). And idealists willing to fight would be more likely to be in their home country's military. Which leaves those willing to fight not for ideals, but cash. And considering what some of the blue helmets have been doing in some places lately...

Crazed Rabbit

Soulforged

06-22-2006, 00:52

Perhaps I should have made clear I was refering to the fact that the UN does want to ban private gun ownership- The UN has not such power, it works by conventions and declarations. However your own state does have it.
In the case that the UN gets and army then, depending on its functions, we might talk in the distant future about taking your private guns ownership, but right now it's theoretically and practically impossible.

I think on the whole the idea of a 'UN army' is not only a good one which can work but something needed to solve some of the problems with the UN. The UN badly needs this kind of force so it can be active rather than passive when it comes to international breaches of human rights or genocides, etc. About time really.It's not compatible with the spirit of the UN, both the Chart and its practical purpose. The UN and their variety of branches are an international forum to conduct changes through conversation and dlipomacy only. If there's a need to engage in an armed conflict the problem should be solved by another force. Transforming a not opressive force in one potencially opressive is not a good idea, never.

drone

06-22-2006, 00:52

Regarding the UN taking our guns, apparently CNN reads the Org. This popped up this afternoon:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/21/un.us.small.arms.ap/index.html

Watchman

06-22-2006, 01:09

The way the NRA and the other gun nuts are overreacting at the idea of stricter controls on illegal arms trade almost makes me wonder if all the bang-sticks they have are actually as legit as they should, or if they have some other similar reason to equal "crack down on illegal trade" with "take away our toys".

I mean, it really is rather easy to read it as them actually fighting for continued trafficking in illegal firearms... sort of how it is easy to imagine why drug lords would be opposed to full narcotics legalization, if you see the parallel.

'Course, they might also just be paranoid alarmist nuts who sleep in tinfoil hats out of fear of silent black UN helos. The NRA in particular seems to be sitting pretty firmly among that bunch of Yank right-wing basket cases.