UNITED NATIONS Army(Proposed)

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/15/114719.shtml?s=ic

Don't laugh youself to death before you read. I can see it now, UN deploys the 1st Shoot, Loot and Rape Brigade to Africa.

BMT

[dedeppm]

Tony Blair talked about doing this, creating a UN Force. It's ironic that the UN, which came down so hard on Sandline and EO in the 1990's (specifically, the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the Use of Mercenaries) is now looking for "professional soldiers" to create a rapid-reaction force. And it only took twelve years after Rwanda for the UN to seriously consider the idea.

They would still probably be better off contracting this work out to PSC's, which have demonstrated a remarkable degree of effectiveness, especially for the price tag they carry. I believe that when EO went into Sierra Leone, they charged USD 35 million, payable in the form of mineral rights in the Kona diamond fields. The Un had a fit, and replaced them with a multinational force at the cost of close to a billion dollars. Oh, and for all that money, the UN/AU force still wasn't effective.

Of course, this brings up another issue, and that is the effectiveness of peacekeeping in general. Many political scientists have pointed out (and I tend to agree with them) that the key to lasting peace is for one side to win an outright victory. As long as both sides feel that they have something that can be gained through fighting, talks will be just that, and the fighting will resume the minute the UN forces pull out. I doubt very much that any proposed UN force would "take sides" and actively help one side win the conflict, which leads me to believe that we'll see genrally the same UN in the future, regardless of whether or not they manage to get a rapid-reaction force together. Just my opinion though, and I haven't even addressed the more pragmatic problems with the creation of such a force (ie funding, training, arms contracts, transportation, etc)

PSC's fascinate me, I'm a dork, I know. :p

[Firebeef]

It was a bad idea in the mid 90s.. an even worser idea now. What would be the point? Their rules of engagement would be so complicated .....and who would make decisions? NOTHING in the UN is done without endless, mind-numbing meetings, where every stinkin 2 bit player has to get up on a soap box and pontificate their point of view..... and of course, noone would ever be permitted to actually enforce anything..... until the actual damage was already done and last weeks news. Try finding anyone in UN heirarchy with actual decision making powers after hours, holidays or on weekends, and of course, they'd have to "consult with some experts", form a coalition and consensus, and of course...... have a meeting!!!

sorry for the rant, but after some time with the UN in BiH, I just can't help myself.

[Pete]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/15/114719.shtml?s=ic

Don't laugh youself to death before you read. I can see it now, UN deploys the 1st Shoot, Loot and Rape Brigade to Africa.

BMT

It will be easy to "hire" the people but the real money will come in transporting them and supporting them in a remote location.

When that needs to be done the UN will pick up the phone and dial

1-USc-ome-help

[Warrior-Mentor]

Except what percent of the UNs budget is funded by the United States?

All it allows us to do is to send Americans off to war without them being enlisted, so the liberal media can't bleed so much in the press about dead contractors as they can about dead GIs.

[incommin]

A UN Foreign Legion! It would be an army without a real commander!

[inbredyokel]

Oh do me a favour, a cohesive military entity under under UN command?
This will never fly, its a PR exercise.
I've deployed under a UN flag five times, FRY 92 on my first tour taught me all I needed to know about these clowns, subsequent tours served to reinforce and deepen my intial estimates.
Worse than passive, we weren't allowed to intervene on behalf of anyone that wasn't under our direct protection- no matter what we witnessed.
That would be a proactive stance, and thus negating the UN's stance of neutrality.- such is their mentality.
The few exceptions of effective intervention have happened only with the involvement of NATO, I view them as on a par if not worse than The League of Nations.
An ineffectual body dedicated to pleasing everyone all of the time- I absolutely loath them.
This lot seriously want to have words with themselves

[inbredyokel]

Apologies for the rant...I just have very little time for the UN.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Apologies for the rant...I just have very little time for the UN.

You're not alone. I just don't have the desire to expound on this feckless organization.

[Trip_Wire (RIP)]

Apologies for the rant...I just have very little time for the UN.

@#@%$(* United Nations!

Please don't get me started on that corrupt and inefficient organization! We should have kicked their butts out of this country years ago! :mad: