The United Nations-is it time for the UN to have it's OWN ARMY?

Question

I don't get why American conservatives hate the Un. The Un is a peaceful body, where the world comes together and solves their issues.

The UN has no full-time standing army. UN presently has troops under it's control, from other nations.

Don't you think it's time for a full-time standing United Nations army to deal with international threats?

I support a 3-5 million man standing army.

Answer 1

Yes, a larger more effective force. That would qwell warfare.

Answer 2

the UN is currently being run by the US, and upon information and belief, is primarily funded by the US. As with any political body, or official, money talks. To babysit the entire world, it would take more than a standing army. I really do not believe an army is the answer, weapons and technologies do not resolve anything, only create death and destruction. Third world nations do not care about global conflicts and could not contribute to any army. They need food and medicine. Public news does not portray much on anything other than what the programmers and directors decide is sensational enough to draw attention and viewers. There is not enough time to reflect the real condition of the rest of the world, much less who, what and why the UN is involved in a conflict. Too much politics. An army of the UN would be an army of mercenaries, not peacekeepers. An army of the UN would only be an extension of the US, another expense for taxpayers. Or it would be a means of the US to further expand its influence. An Army of the UN defeats the purpose of the UN.
The UN cannot become a spy network dealing with international threats. That would interfere with and provide too much power outside the rights of any American or any other person born into this world free. Other countries do not have the rights we have, even though there are times even those rights are used to wipe somebodies butt.
The UN has its own government, like the Vatican. The US would not allow any other government to have power over it. It better not....
I believe in bread, not bullets. NO ARMY FOR THE UN.

Answer 3

actually the reason many americans wish the US would drop from the UN is because American troops are the sole army the UN uses because america is the only super power left in the world. A large percentage of the countries hate the US and do not support their decisions and therefore, why would the US want to send THEIR troops to help support a group of countries that openly have a deep rooted hatred against the Americans and their actions. If the UN wants to have troops, it should have the rest of the world enfore it. If it wasnt for the American troops itd just be a bunch of countries say "yay! world peace" but with no executive power.

Answer 4

i'm no longer a Christian yet every person with a IQ above room temperature might want to make certain what a foul theory a U.N with a 5 million guy military, and countless funding is. lets surely be placing ourselves up for a international dictatorship. there'll in no way be total peace see you later as there are people, as Plato suggested "surely the lifeless have considered the authentic of conflict". The U.N as a employer is a funny tale. It takes them months if no longer years to render even the finest of options, and they have the nerve to nominate international places like China, and Libya on the fee for human rights. I say abolish the U.N.

Answer 5

the un was designed as a place to hash stuff out instead of shooting.

when the shooting does start the armies are volunteered from the countries that fell strongest about the issue.

in the 90's it was used effectivly to keep the lid on the former yugoslavia.

it is a last resort of negotiation when used properly.

Answer 6

I absolutely agree. Terrorism is a global threat. and it is not about just an army, we need to continue to try and persuade people from all over the world to help promote peace between nations. are world is slowly but surely going to hell in figurative and near literal terms. everyone on this earth has an affect on one another, instead of useless squabbling we all need to get our heads out of our asses, stop being so f***ing prejudicous and work for each other and not against each other. just ask any person in any corner of the earth if it is right for a man or woman to take the life of another. what will they most likely respond? No. and yet we have these hypocritical, (sorry i will not go into the depths of the insults i have for our world leaders i could go on for hours) we have these people that send their soldiers out to war to kill each other just becuase we have a difference in opinion of how people should think.

Answer 7

Having a standing army is too expensive and too controversial. Better to allow the Security Council to authorize peace keeping forces for specific purposes.

Answer 8

The reason people hate the UN is that it's decisions are based on self interest and it has a history of rampant corruption. UN forces/officials have been implicated in rape, bribery, molesting children, and racketeering. The UN has covered up and ignored all of these problems.

Answer 9

i think that would require some sort of globalisation effort before that happens. I think it has merits, but it also depends on what the UN believes is international threats, and whether it would be a puppet of the supporting nations or an independent body.

I like the idea, but something scares me about it... can't quite put my finger on it tho.

Answer 10

Yes, God yes!!!! Best thing I've read all night. How it will work...I can't tell you, but if it did it would be a lot easier to accept help from the UN army rather than a nation you may be uneasy about.

I think conservs hate the UN because it doesnt' cower to them...which is a good thing to me.

Answer 11

The way I see it the UN can't even stop sitting on their own hands, let alone have the naus to coordinate and maintain an army