The United Nations is forming an army!

[scooter_the_shooter]

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/print...719.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 )



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


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

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

[Devastatin Dave]

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

LOL

[lars573]

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 )



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


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

(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 ) 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]

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]

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.

Please try less sugar in your cereal...

[L'Impresario]

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]

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 , the conference is about the illegal arms trade and it isn't sitting on the 4th July , thats a holiday dontyaknow
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]

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]

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]

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?

[scooter_the_shooter]

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 , the conference is about the illegal arms trade and it isn't sitting on the 4th July , thats a holiday dontyaknow
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

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

I'll be back with the right links.

[AntiochusIII]

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

[Spetulhu]

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

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.

edit: 666 posts!

[Tribesman]

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

I'll be back with the right links.
Yeah right
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
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]

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]

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]

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]

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/...ss-release.pdf


http://www.iansa.org/members/IANSA-m...ng-low-res.pdf read the part in page 2 in red...they're not biased now are they 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...om=%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]

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. I don't want to underestimate the opportunities for abuse, but chaos is usually worse than tyranny.

[Tribesman]

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
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

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 . 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?

[Watchman]

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...

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]

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 )

And of course the US uses it´s army only for peacekeeping, right?
Besides, everybody critsizes the UN for being slow, now they want to get an army to be faster and then it´s again wrong.

[Lemur]

You're in good company - by my lights at least. Take a look at this. 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 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]

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 .

[L'Impresario]

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]

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]

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]

Your senario is complete crap. Permanent members of the sercuirty council (like umm the US ) 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]

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]

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
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)