Should the United Nations amass a huge army and take out despots.?

Question

Not ones with large armies that will drain the UN, but in smaller states, easy to take over so the people can have a better future or at least have a chance at a decent life.
African warloads come to mind.

They would need resolve to commit to such an action in order to avoid the mistakes of Somalia.

Answer 1

that is a great idea actually why dont they do it.

Answer 2

Believe it or not, this very idea was given much consideration after the UN was formed in 1945-46. But few nations were willing to give the UN the vast amounts of money needed to follow through with this project.

I have long been a moderate supporter of the UN (I'm not American, eh?) but I think that if the UN had access to its own army, it likely would have been hijacked by radical nuts and directed to invade (check one) Israel, India or the U.S.

Answer 3

Not necessary when an sniper will do the job much more effeciently. He can keep doing that job until someone gets the hint that if there good to there people and call in UN aid and establish the rule of law not despotism they can live a long and happy life.

Answer 4

So who determines who is taken out? Iran, Cuba, or Syria... you know that the UN just gives the smaller people a forum to work their stuff. The UN stopped Hezbollah and the PLO when they were threatening Israel. Additionally, the UN wants to justify evil leaders and make those of us that sacrifice for a greater good look bad. Just look how the UN works against our soldiers everyday just to line the pockets of those in power (Oil-for-food and the responses to Iraq.

Answer 5

I do not think so because only 5 countries have the final say so over the whole world. Personally, I think there should be a lot of huge changes within the UN to make it more fair or disband the whole thing.

Answer 6

Sadly, the United Nations is configured in such a fashion as to be completely unable to take action...

It takes the Security Council to set a course of action... and with China on the Council, most resolutions to ACTION can't be completed...

Answer 7

Why? So the United Nations can become a despot?
That's like saying it was okay for the Bush administration to illegally and unconstitutionally invade Iraq - a sovereign nation that in no way threatened, attacked or even provoked the U.S.
So, is Hussein any more of a despot than George Bush???

Who decides who the despot is? Is Hussein a dirtier despot because he killed hundreds of thousands of Iraq citizens; and does that make him worse than George W. Bush who has only killed 41,000 Iraqi citizens?

Was Hitler more evil because he killed 6 million Jews while Bush has only killed 3,000 American soldiers???

Perhaps the world would be better served if the United Nations would join forces with any remaining 'civilized' nations in the world (i.e, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, etc.) to promote peace initiatives. It would certainly be a far more productive activity than the wars that the Bush administration starts so that our giant military-industrial complex can record record profits in their next annual reports! -RKO-

Answer 8

The UN do a great job of just observing. Might be better to arrange for private military contractors to do the dirty work.

Answer 9

this idea has already been show by the army called Global Defense Initiative which is the UN army,but anyway, UN troops are not allow to carry more than a small handgun for protection

Answer 10

It is not the UN's job to police the world.

Answer 11

NOT!!! Bad idea. We need to do away with the UN.