2007-01-29 21:44:46 · 9 answers · asked by COBAN 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes! When the UN votes to do or not to do something that is in the best interest of the world they should and should be able to back it up!
2007-01-29 21:51:25 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
My basic reason for opposing giving the UN its own army comes in 2 forms:
were will they get the troops from? I served the US navy in a war, proudly, but i would not have considered serving the UN directly.
I am basically opposed to the UN as it stands today. I am for disbanding the body as a whole. Start another one, made up only of nations with governments that are representative of the people if you like but this dysfunctional mess should go.
2007-01-30 05:51:39 · answer #2 · answered by Malikail 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I might be under a misinterpreted premise of your question, but by any means not to offend you if I read your question wrong. But doesn't the UN have a coalition force currently? Are you saying that you are looking for a more pro-active aggresive coalition force, to engage instead of maintain order by peaceful means only?
The coalition forces main objective is a peace keeping presence. That is also why a lot of reports about them not being very strong or capable of handling the task at-hand. Is an wrongful understatement of falsehood and misinterperted judgement. Because being any one country being attacked and lack responding does undermines their mission goals and purpose of being there, to maintain peace and order. Which also also include a package of incentives for those in this joint humanitarian effort, and able to recover financial reparations from an agressive act against the UNCF's..
The protocols for the coalition forces to engage hostilably would need clearance from more then one Commander In Chief. Which to me sets a bad precedent to even begin to fathom a response without assessing the future of the UNCF and the protcols for service.
Which could make the efforts worsen and induce into a wider world involvement by which other countries being secured calling foul on the UNCF objectives and begin attacks of hostility. If you have the time to research the attack of our US invovlement in peacekeeping efforts in Beirut where militas attacked our military that was armed with unloaded weapons.
So, the UN coalition and even when fired upon rarely ever become pro-responsive. Instead the countries sustaining deaths or injuries in the coalition, are now available for reparation under this act.
The UNCF should never change its focus of being a peace keeping force. With virtually the least or utterly none involvement from aggressive countries like ourselves, Iran, Israel, Syria, Palastine and others alike, being in any peace efforts. Especially, while pre-occupied in war(s) on other soil or anywhere else .
This will allow for the UNCF to become respected and trusted with a clear cut policy. Keeeping the repect of adopted protocols and limitations to its agenda. Providing the information of the clear cut objective and goals that they will be condusive for the mission at-hand to all involved in this endeavor.
2007-01-30 06:18:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No the UN shall not disappear...but its security council is like a toothless watch dog....may be its because policies is politically difficult....
THe standing force u are talking of will use of nothing....the UN is unable to enforce the right polices and use force for peace restoration
2007-01-30 05:57:21 · answer #4 · answered by rapstar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it defeats the point of the UN which is independent nations coming together to resolve global conflicts.
A standing army would be a PR disaster as it would represent (to coin an elder Bush phrase) 'A one world government' which many would instantly view with distrust.
As well, it would be more difficult to deploy nations with sensitivity to particular regions or culture if there was a homogonous force.
2007-01-30 05:49:12 · answer #5 · answered by Blitzhund 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
My reason is the UN typically goes against proposals the USA brings. Plus the USA already foots the bill for a third of the UN and all their activities, so a standing force would only cost me more.
2007-01-30 05:49:01 · answer #6 · answered by Jon H 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The UN should just disappear...
Who actually stays strict with UN ideas these day??? The french... Maybe?
2007-01-30 05:50:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UN is a useless entity completely controlled by the US. I think we should all blink together and make it disappear.
2007-01-30 05:52:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For what, they don't enforce anything.
2007-01-30 06:09:25 · answer #9 · answered by mark g 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋