babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » United Nations 'Army' Proposed

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: United Nations 'Army' Proposed
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 June 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
United Nations 'Army' Proposed

"This week, a group of academics, former officials and security experts are tabling a proposal they hope will change that by creating an international rapid reaction force that could be deployed within 48 hours of a green light from the United Nations."


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 15 June 2006 02:58 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can see all the "coming rapture" types getting all over this "next step" in the coming world government of the beast.

I also expect the US will strenuously object to the creation of a military force that could, depending on circumstances, be used against it.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 15 June 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
paxamillion, perhaps you've read different articles; but in the article linked above the force is supposed to number about 15, 000 personnel, and as such the hypothesis you refer to would be absurd.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
TK 421
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12140

posted 15 June 2006 04:04 PM      Profile for TK 421     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In my opinion it is not about having troops available. The real issue is having the will and mandate to use them for other than traditional "blue-beret" observation tasks.

If you want to "prevent" or "stop" situations like Rwanda you need to be able to impose your will on another country (or faction in a civil war). That imposition of will is called war. Regardless of the amount of troops standing by on-call, the key ingredient is to have the will and mandate to use them for other than hand-wringing. That is about politics, not the means to implement.

My two cents as usual.

TK


From: Near and far | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 15 June 2006 05:33 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

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.

Nice fantasy. Security Council members will still jockey around playing for advantage except in those rare instances where nobody has anything at all invested in whatever problem is being addressed.

To even begin to get off of the ground this idea has to be combined with a revision of the UN to eliminate the veto power of individual nations in the SC. A two thirds majority of the SC should be adequate to force action.

For an international force to truly be effective the UN or alternative body needs to be able to compel resources (tax) from all nations and to have enough support to present a credible countervailing force to any one country, including the US.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 June 2006 06:49 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Voices: UN Army

This is a long-overdue decision from the UN. Its keys to success will be the erasing of nationalities and the like to become a truly non-partisan force.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 15 June 2006 07:39 PM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by paxamillion:
I can see all the "coming rapture" types getting all over this "next step" in the coming world government of the beast.

Yes! Yes! All the "patriot" whackos and New World Order conspiracy theorists must be wetting themselves over this. Of course, many of them believe there has been a secret UN army operating around the world for a long time already - impersonating local police while confiscating firearms from the citizenry, quietly assassinating people who 'know too much', covering up UFO crashes and abductions, etc. etc.

So, they may dismiss this announcement as just another attempt to hide the true size and power of the secret portion of the "UN army".

I love nutters!


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 15 June 2006 07:48 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rgaiason:


Of course, many of them believe there has been a secret UN army operating around the world for a long time already - impersonating local police while confiscating firearms from the citizenry, quietly assassinating people who 'know too much', covering up UFO crashes and abductions, etc. etc.


Little do they know that this is actually the mandate of the CIA.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 16 June 2006 01:36 AM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by siren:

Little do they know that this is actually the mandate of the CIA.

I was under the impression the CIA spent all its time creating MK Ultra and Operation Monarch zombies, while running child prostitution rings on the side. (rense.com, Gunderson, Franklin cover-up, etc.)

I'm trying to figure out where this strange piece of disinformation fits into the scheme of things:
Bilderbergers


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 16 June 2006 06:05 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
this is a formality:
there are 40,000 blue helmets in the field today:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/milad/cmos/current_ops.htm

[ 16 June 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 16 June 2006 07:58 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps a military force would be more acceptable if it did not include chapter seven missions, but stuck to the more traditional peace keeping typified by Cyprus.

Failing that, I think there should at least be a rapid reaction capability for natural disasters and emergency relief efforts. And of course, I would favour retired military personel for those jobs. They have the logistical expertise.

But as ever, the key to U.N. action is to take a page from Sun Tzu, and accompish what is large while it is still small. Or, as Benny Franklin used to say, "a stitch in time saves nine."

The kind of emergencies we want the U.N. to respond to and "fix" are beyond the point of fixing by the time the crisis arrives.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 16 June 2006 09:42 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TK 421:
That imposition of will is called war.

But it is violence without authority. I don't buy the Hobbesian worldview that the only possibility of stopping violence is a greater, more "global" violence. Following Arendt, violence is only ever a short-term solution to the problem of getting and/or maintaining power - i.e. will. In the long run, authority is necessary for effective control of any particular social situation.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 16 June 2006 07:46 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rgaiason:

I'm trying to figure out where this strange piece of disinformation fits into the scheme of things:
Bilderbergers


Hah, that's a pretty funny little blog spot. Yours?


quote:
Kissinger Eats Banana Republic

Participants at last weeks Bilderberg group meeting in Ottawa were reportedly shocked to discover fellow participant Henry Kissinger lying semi-comatose in a hotel hallway, clutching his more than usually distended belly, after having consumed an entire Central American nation.



From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 June 2006 07:48 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The idea of a UN rapid response force is closely linked with the concept of "humanitarian war" pioneered by Bill Clinton in Yugoslavia. It's a plan to give a veneer of legitimacy to imperialist police actions around the world.

Such a force would never - never - be used in support of anti-imperialist struggles, to enforce UN Security Council resolutions against Israel, or to protect leftists in Haiti or East Timor from being killed by their own US-client governments.

It would be intended for taming anti-imperialist governments (a.k.a. "failed states") who refuse to conform to the globalization agenda and the Washington consensus.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 16 June 2006 08:16 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Untill we have a democraticaly elected UN we should in my opinion not provide it with the power to impose its will on anyone. The biggest problem we have in my opinion is the unequal distribution of resourses and a true democracy, with a free media is maybe the best way to tackel that problem.

At this stage a UN army would probably just freeze us into a perpetual resourse war trying to maintain the status quo.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca