Should The United Nations Have Its Own Military?

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by rmnunez, In practice its a problem because armed forces don't heed well foreign orders, nobody wants their boys in harm's way under some foreigner's command. To get around this what they do is use the contributing government's own command structure. If many countries are involved they use discrete units with their own command structures, try and pair countries with close ties, cultural similarities and same military set ups to assemble joint commands of their own. It works pretty well in peacekeeping which usually doesn't involve a lot of action or casualties.

Most western nations seem to be able to deal with overall US military leadership during multinational operations, even if it has proved itself to be a little...simplistic and heavy handed in its tactics at times.

[castille]

Originally posted by G. Adams, Most western nations seem to be able to deal with overall US military leadership during multinational operations, even if it has proved itself to be a little...simplistic and heavy handed in its tactics at times.

But did those wars really matter? A few bombings of African nations, maybe levelling Yugoslavia's entire country, none of those operations were really important or major.

Now World War 2....the US-UK disputes were really funny. Not to mention the Soviet-West disputes. I couldn't imagine Russian troops taking orders from American generals.


The best thing to do is to focus on developing your own country. "Before you criticise another man's garden, fix up your own garden first."

[G. Adams]

The 2 wars in Iraq mattered in terms of military operation. And the world is a different place to WWII, you would never have dreamed of a European Union then unless carved by a dictator. But now we can deal with our problems peacefully and to the great extent, get on with each other.

[castille]

Yes, but can you extend that "getting along" (or "foreigners taking command of our troops") into non-European countries?

To be more specific, can a white man command a black or yellow man, without raising tensions? I mean the very line of racism are focused on white supremecy. A Frenchmen wouldn't have a lot of problems being bossed around by a German (they're used to it ), but would a Nigerian who spent his life fighting for his country, find it a tad bothersome to be bossed around by an American?

[Sonart]

Originally posted by Osborn Which is why I will never support the U.N. along the lines they now espouse.

Well Bush is working on the United Nations of America, so hang in there, I'm sure they'll come up with a model that will suit you eventually.

The best thing to do is to focus on developing your own country. "Before you criticise another man's garden, fix up your own garden first."

I'm afraid the world has gotten much too small for that now. With globalization, most of the gardens are all mixed in with each other. Perhaps it's wise to start thinking about the neighborhood. Given that we're a superpower, economically and otherwise, our house seems to be in reasonable order, barring a few sibling spats, husband/wife dustups, arguements about allowances and chores, and some overdue bills.

The nations of the world are literally at each other's doorsteps. With instantious satelite communcations, the Internet, mass imigration and global commerce, the lines of nationalizm are really blurring, but people keep struggling to maintain they're identity. In many ways, that's what the mideast is about..

Unless we're willing to take on the role of global dictator, we're gonna have to find a way to get along with the neighborhood and treat them with some respect. After all, in the end it's in our own interests.

[Osborn F Enready]

Your right, thats why I fully agree with what George Washington said:

(clippet)
To the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government....

Toward the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to con-fine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.... If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear....

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation....

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard....

Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow-citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government -- the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So long ago, and yet still so true in his prophetic words. This is our original stance, and should still be much our current stance, as you can see where entagling alliances have led us to spreading hate for our nation, hate for our people, and hate for our overall ideals since we perverted those ideals with hypocrisy by the past several administrations.

This was taken from George Washingtons Farwell Address.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/...democrac/49.htm

[castille]

Originally posted by Sonart, I'm afraid the world has gotten much too small for that now. With globalization, most of the gardens are all mixed in with each other.

The gardens aren't being mixed in, we simply percieve they are. What happens in Nigeria may have an impact on the US economy, but it doesn't mean the US has the right to invade at whim. (But if you argue people have no rights, then you won't object to a terrorist bombing of the US)

Given that we're a superpower, economically and otherwise, our house seems to be in reasonable order, barring a few sibling spats, husband/wife dustups, arguements about allowances and chores, and some overdue bills.

Rampant unemployment, highest crime ratios in the world, highest death penalty ratios in the world, overcrowded prisons, racism, poor education levels...that doesn't sound like a neat house.

Unless we're willing to take on the role of global dictator, we're gonna have to find a way to get along with the neighborhood and treat them with some respect. After all, in the end it's in our own interests.

Have you seen those nosy neighbours who poke their nose into your business, tell you how to raise your kids, yell at your kids for personal behaviour, and give you lectures on everything? Sounds like Washington DC.

[rmnunez]

The way armed forces coordinate in military exercises is quite different from the way they interact in actual missions. When NATO conducts naval exercises its much simpler and easier than when they deploy troops for combat in Yugoslavia or Afghanistan. The difference is often seen in the 'friendly fire' incidents. Strategically a militarily capable UN would need to fashion goals to the liking of its primary military contributor (the US) and this would certainly disturb internationalists who tend to think a more powerful UN would be nice to curb American military adventurism.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Have you guys seen this? Think Kofi Annan has struck a nerve with Bush?HAHAHA!!! I applaud the UN for chastising Mr Bush for his outlaw regime. We need to kick Bush out, not the UN.

World Net Daily TV campaign urging: Kick U.N. out of U.S. Group wants headquarters booted, asks public to sign online petition -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: November 21, 2004 8:59 p.m. Eastern A new anti-United Nations television campaign is reversing the familiar refrain "get the U.S. out of the U.N.," and instead urges the global body be kicked out of the U.S. "The U.N. has become an apologist and defender of terrorist organizations and their agents," says the 60-second commercial, which points out the recent Oil-for-Food scandal involving the U.N.

[bullshitdetector]

You applaud the UN? Well I guess that says it all, doesn't it?

[Samildanach]

Hmm I didn't see this article at the time it was printed but what do yo guys think about it?

http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0304/usvseu.htm

[PatrickHenry]

This subject has been broached before in this forum, Samildanach. No time to search for the thread now, but I think you should start a new thread for a discussion of the switch to the Euro as the currency for oil pricing. This thread is for something else, but I would like to talk about the Dollar v. the Euro.

[Nono]

The Day of Reckoning is one of several recent threads that lend themselves to a discussion of euro vs. dollar, since when the dollar is pushed aside what else but the euro could replace it?

[rmnunez]

My solution is to relabel dollars in trade measurement as "IMUs" (International Monetary Units). This way people who dislike the US (most of the world) wouldn't be irked to find outputs and expenditures rendered in the currency of their hated enemy.