Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Geoff332 · Sep 2, 2003, 11:10 pm

I ran across this a few days ago. It's quite interesting take on it from someone who knows quite a bit about it.

The problem with accountability is a serious one -- and potentially fatal. But quite different from the problem of a dictatorship. That's why I favour the establishment of procedural rules (something that is unlikely in the present environment).

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 2, 2003, 11:45 pm

Adams
Do you really think the current actions of the UN were the idea of the USA? Americans as a rule are very unhappy with the actions of the UN right now, and most would not shed a tear if we dropped out of it.

fedfem · Sep 3, 2003, 12:55 am

Quote:

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 2 2003, 11:45 PM
Americans as a rule are very unhappy with the actions of the UN right now, and most would not shed a tear if we dropped out of it.

I disagree and would love to see you backup that statement. No Fox News polls, please.

Do you by any chance post over at FreeRepublic?

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 3, 2003, 01:09 am

Actually I think they banned me when I posted my views on abortion, but I did post there for a day or two, but got real tired of everyone somply calling me a baby killer and refusing to use reason. (lol) Sorry to disappoint you, but there is more than just the left and right in this world.

fedfem · Sep 3, 2003, 01:23 am

I do know there is more than right or left, since I am right in the middle of it. I was referring to the UN bashing that goes on over there and the "as a rule" statement. I play by a different set of rules, I guess.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 3, 2003, 01:46 am

I would have thought that the dragon in my sig would have tipped you off that I am not a member of the fundamentalist right, that and my not believing in a God. (lol)

Fallen Angel · Sep 3, 2003, 01:05 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 3 2003, 01:46 AM
I would have thought that the dragon in my sig would have tipped you off that I am not a member of the fundamentalist right, that and my not believing in a God. (lol)

So I take it you believe by that last remark in a dragon?

fedfem · Sep 3, 2003, 02:32 pm

I believe he is referring to the book of Revelations.lol

Fallen Angel · Sep 4, 2003, 03:14 am

Yeah unfortunately hes marked already poor bugger.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 4, 2003, 03:00 pm

??? I kinda like the concept of a fair world as well, does not mean I believe in one...my 'remark' said nothing of the sort.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 6, 2003, 05:42 pm

Well, we effectively did drop out of the UN, one for not giving in our dues, and two for going against their own rulings. I even think Bush tried to ban flying the UN flag on US territory...

That said, the UN should have a military for exactly this contingency, because we can see that the UN works only when the US supports it - mainly because the US can decide what we can and cannot do since it has the largest military budget the world has ever seen (more than the next 19 countries combined). The blue helmets can't intervene on most instances because the leading countries don't really want to get ensnarled in just the problems the US is in right now.

We really can't talk about a New World Order or an international judicial committee when the US flouts the UN's rule when it so pleases us. Notice how no suspected terrorists are reaching the international court. Notice how the US ignores UN concerns for its tribunals on Guantanamo and others. Notice our "coalition of the willing" and our expelling of UN inspectors. They should have a military if only to stop our aggression.

PatrickHenry · Nov 12, 2004, 04:05 am

Who would command the UN military?

What would their agenda be?

Could they be hijacked into doing the bidding of powerful and manipulative member states?

What would trigger the use of UN troops?

Too many questions and no worthy answers. An independent UN military would be another step towards the New World Order. I prefer national sovereignty.

Vee · Nov 12, 2004, 05:21 am

yes it should have its own military

Samildanach · Nov 12, 2004, 08:15 am

I would support the forming of a UN military unit so long as all countries were brought into the fold and we got rid of those ridiculous vetos. All countries would be required to contribute soldiers to the UN unit. However if the UN took action against a country with the UN military then the soldiers of the rebelling nation could not be expected to fight their countrymen and would have to gracefully bow out for that round.

Nono · Nov 12, 2004, 12:36 pm

I'm for a sort of UN 'foreign legion', i.e. mercenaries. They would sign a pledge of allegiance to the UN. They would also declare themselves personally bound by the provisions of international law. This would mean, for example, that they could be tried for breaches of the Genenva Conventions no problem, having waived consular protection, etc. Hence no more of the kind of crap we've seen in the Congo.

This is no panacea, I know. But at least there would be no more Rwandas, with national governments wringing their hands while innocents get slaughtered because we don't want our boys getting their hair mussed.

Samildanach's bow-out proviso is interesting.

Quote:

Who would command the UN military?

A hierarchy of full-time UN military officers taking their orders directly from the Security Council in the form of its resolutions. No national affiliation.

Quote:

What would their agenda be?

See above.

Quote:

Could they be hijacked into doing the bidding of powerful and manipulative member states?

Maybe. If it's worth having international law, it's worth trying to find a way around this.

Quote:

What would trigger the use of UN troops?

A Security Council whose permanent members reflect demographic and regional realities. A tall order, I know.

bullshitdetector · Nov 12, 2004, 12:39 pm

Since I have seen so many references to fighting a war being akin to waging terror, why would those of you who don that attribute to the american military want the UN to its own military? Does that mean when the UN stomps it feet its ok but when the US does its not?

Nono · Nov 12, 2004, 12:50 pm

**Pooeypants** · Nov 12, 2004, 12:54 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bullshitdetector,
Since I have seen so many references to fighting a war being akin to waging terror, why would those of you who don that attribute to the american military want the UN to its own military? Does that mean when the UN stomps it feet its ok but when the US does its not?

The UN would serve for the international community, not just a single nation. The greatest good for the greatest amount of the people is part of American philosophy isn't it?

bullshitdetector · Nov 12, 2004, 12:56 pm

Yes it is, the boy scouts have the same philosophy in a smaller context, it just doesn't invite child molesters into the campfire sing alongs to help things along, does it? Look at the UN and who is part of it.

caspian88 · Nov 12, 2004, 02:49 pm

I am not a supporter of the UN at all. I see it as a neccesary evil, and so I am a bit biased, but here goes:

A UN military is probobly unfeasible. They have no territory, and as such, troops would still be biased. Even if you are a UN soldier, loyal to international law, would you want to fight on the soil of the nation you came from?

Also, there's the problem of the UN with a military would then be a dictatorship, unless we get to vote for the leadership of the UN. I'm never going to be subserviant to an unelected leader. I'm sure almost evreyone agrees.

I don't really like the UN, as I believe in as small a government as possible, with regional governments having the true power. Thusly, I don't believe that the US should be a member of an organization that a) does nothing and b) I have no say in. I'm not too big on international law, either. I say, eliminate international law, and we'll not have any more wars or troubles than we already do - as it is, a nation can attack another quite easily, with few repercussions. Keep to yourself, don't interfere with other nations, and you'll do fine.

Sep 2, 2003, 11:45 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Adams Do you really think the current actions of the UN were the idea of the USA? Americans as a rule are very unhappy with the actions of the UN right now, and most would not shed a tear if we dropped out of it. Logical Fallicies Link

Sep 3, 2003, 01:09 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Actually I think they banned me when I posted my views on abortion, but I did post there for a day or two, but got real tired of everyone somply calling me a baby killer and refusing to use reason. (lol) Sorry to disappoint you, but there is more than just the left and right in this world. Logical Fallicies Link

Sep 3, 2003, 01:46 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	I would have thought that the dragon in my sig would have tipped you off that I am not a member of the fundamentalist right, that and my not believing in a God. (lol) Logical Fallicies Link

Sep 4, 2003, 03:00 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	??? I kinda like the concept of a fair world as well, does not mean I believe in one...my 'remark' said nothing of the sort. Logical Fallicies Link

Sep 6, 2003, 05:42 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Well, we effectively did drop out of the UN, one for not giving in our dues, and two for going against their own rulings. I even think Bush tried to ban flying the UN flag on US territory... That said, the UN should have a military for exactly this contingency, because we can see that the UN works only when the US supports it - mainly because the US can decide what we can and cannot do since it has the largest military budget the world has ever seen (more than the next 19 countries combined). The blue helmets can't intervene on most instances because the leading countries don't really want to get ensnarled in just the problems the US is in right now. We really can't talk about a New World Order or an international judicial committee when the US flouts the UN's rule when it so pleases us. Notice how no suspected terrorists are reaching the international court. Notice how the US ignores UN concerns for its tribunals on Guantanamo and others. Notice our "coalition of the willing" and our expelling of UN inspectors. They should have a military if only to stop our aggression. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 2, 2003, 11:10 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	I ran across this a few days ago. It's quite interesting take on it from someone who knows quite a bit about it. The problem with accountability is a serious one -- and potentially fatal. But quite different from the problem of a dictatorship. That's why I favour the establishment of procedural rules (something that is unlikely in the present environment).

Sep 3, 2003, 01:23 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	I do know there is more than right or left, since I am right in the middle of it. I was referring to the UN bashing that goes on over there and the "as a rule" statement. I play by a different set of rules, I guess.

Sep 3, 2003, 02:32 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	I believe he is referring to the book of Revelations.lol

Sep 4, 2003, 03:14 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	Yeah unfortunately hes marked already poor bugger.

Nov 12, 2004, 04:05 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,437	Who would command the UN military? What would their agenda be? Could they be hijacked into doing the bidding of powerful and manipulative member states? What would trigger the use of UN troops? Too many questions and no worthy answers. An independent UN military would be another step towards the New World Order. I prefer national sovereignty. "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Nov 12, 2004, 05:21 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
Vee Igneous Magma Posts: 353	yes it should have its own military Australian Parliamentary Simulator Aussies: Welcome to the Rudd Regime Yanks: Welcome to Hell Now Purgatory. Others: G'day mate.

Nov 12, 2004, 08:15 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	I would support the forming of a UN military unit so long as all countries were brought into the fold and we got rid of those ridiculous vetos. All countries would be required to contribute soldiers to the UN unit. However if the UN took action against a country with the UN military then the soldiers of the rebelling nation could not be expected to fight their countrymen and would have to gracefully bow out for that round. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Nov 12, 2004, 12:39 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
bullshitdetector BANNED Posts: 598	Since I have seen so many references to fighting a war being akin to waging terror, why would those of you who don that attribute to the american military want the UN to its own military? Does that mean when the UN stomps it feet its ok but when the US does its not?

Nov 12, 2004, 12:50 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 6,769	Huh? "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Nov 12, 2004, 12:56 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
bullshitdetector BANNED Posts: 598	Yes it is, the boy scouts have the same philosophy in a smaller context, it just doesn't invite child molesters into the campfire sing alongs to help things along, does it? Look at the UN and who is part of it.

Nov 12, 2004, 02:49 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
caspian88 Molten Ash Posts: 85	I am not a supporter of the UN at all. I see it as a neccesary evil, and so I am a bit biased, but here goes: A UN military is probobly unfeasible. They have no territory, and as such, troops would still be biased. Even if you are a UN soldier, loyal to international law, would you want to fight on the soil of the nation you came from? Also, there's the problem of the UN with a military would then be a dictatorship, unless we get to vote for the leadership of the UN. I'm never going to be subserviant to an unelected leader. I'm sure almost evreyone agrees. I don't really like the UN, as I believe in as small a government as possible, with regional governments having the true power. Thusly, I don't believe that the US should be a member of an organization that a) does nothing and b) I have no say in. I'm not too big on international law, either. I say, eliminate international law, and we'll not have any more wars or troubles than we already do - as it is, a nation can attack another quite easily, with few repercussions. Keep to yourself, don't interfere with other nations, and you'll do fine.