The UN has done so much good for humanity. World leaders working together for peace. There are so many examples. The UN presently has internatinal "peacekeepers", not it's own army.
WOULD YOU SUPPORT THE U.N. WITH IT'S OWN STANDING ARMY?
I believe in a strong UN. A strong UN, with a strong leader. A United Nations Army with about 5 million men....would save American lives. Would deal with international threats, and rogue nations. THEN WE WILL HAVE PEACE.
2006-09-15 08:37:09 · 20 answers · asked by Villain 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A one world government is the solution to war and disease. It's time for a New World Order to bring us peace.
2006-09-15 08:42:53 · update #1
Good idea,except that I believe that each country should take care of thier own borders,and then call in the big guns if they can't handle it.
2006-09-15 08:38:44 · answer #1 · answered by aries4272 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I would ask if you're crazy but your question makes that plain. Consider, if you will, that the current UN Human Rights committe is comprised of governments that are in the top ten of Amnesty International's most abusive. What about the Oil for Food scandal from our good friend Kofi Annan? So, no, I would not support anything like an army from the United Nations because it is NOT even CLOSE to being united. Its the most fractious organization that I have ever seen. The better question would be "How can we dismantle the UN and make something that really works?"
2006-09-15 10:05:45 · answer #2 · answered by Michael E 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i imagine you're dreaming. i love the lavatory lennon track 'imagine' also, yet Utopia does not exist. the position might want to those 5 million adult men come from? From 'impartial u . s . a .', the position they haven't any ties to a unique u . s . a .? What has the UN finished contained in the perfect 10 years, except balloting on 'sanctions' which they don't implement? Has the UN ever released a defense force marketing campaign that did not bring about a catastrophe? Do you not comprehend that quite some the countries contained in the UN vote in accordance to their personal interest, and under no circumstances that of the international? look at how Russia and China voted concerning Iraq. Are you not conscious that they both had oil contracts with Iraq, hence they voted hostile to imposing 13 years of failed sanctions? provide up living in la la land, awaken to how the authentic international works. There are undesirable human beings in this international, and if we do not provide up them, they are going to do undesirable issues.
2016-11-27 00:51:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course i would support that. The U.N. is the only body in the world that should have a standing army. All other nations should reduce their armed forces to nothing more than a strong police force and guard their countries internally and their borders from trouble makers such as terrorists , drug smugglers and alike.
Once armies are gone, there is no fighting anymore. Very much to the sadness of the military-industrial complex there wouldn't be any war left to profit from. I think we would have to care for all those execs of Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Rockwell, Northrup and alike and hand them some Prozac.
Of course your idea is as wonderful as it is sentenced to fail, because the Bush junta has an obligation to their backers (list above) to keep our country in a permanent state of panic, fear and war in order for those businesses to prosper.
I curse the day the military-industrial complex got the idea that war is just another business. Somewhere during the Eisenhower administration this happened. Strangely enough Eisenhower was also obsessed with homosexuality, just like this junta.
2006-09-15 08:56:16 · answer #4 · answered by The answer man 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
YES-YES-YES. THE UN SHOULD BE THE POLICE POWER ON THE PLANET. If a country has a problem the UNPolice/Army would be dispatched after the meeting and vote of all nations.their authority should enable them to transport large populations of people to underdeveloped countries for a new start, instead of fixing the old mess.
2006-09-15 08:50:40 · answer #5 · answered by Mars 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hell no - The UN is very good at resolving conflict - an army is only for taking part in conflict...
The UN should be beurocratic in nature... making agreements and treaties and such... why would they need to fight? They only do the will of the people... not enforce rules by brute force... that is soooo 1984.
2006-09-15 08:42:29 · answer #6 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
A strong and powerful United Nations? What a joke! Less moneys for Kofi, won't happen!
2006-09-15 09:04:10 · answer #7 · answered by Bawney 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. The U.N. is waste of money and a waste of space. We should send them packing and kick their butts out of New York City.
2006-09-15 10:19:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You original assertion is wrong. The UN has done very little for humanity......
Arming an inept group of diplomats is a very bad idea.
Hmmmmm where have I read this before...... Oh yeah, the Book of Revelation
2006-09-15 09:01:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think there is some merit there, right now the UN is basically just a talking head without much in the way of real authority.
2006-09-15 08:43:27 · answer #10 · answered by Kevin 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
NO!!!! The UN has done absolutely nothing for world peace. The USA has done lots more for the world than the UN.
2006-09-15 08:46:42 · answer #11 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋