Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Useless UN

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    I think we're in agreement and right now, we're talking past each other. I agree that the UN in its current form is totally unfunctional but the UN or something like it is needed and is needed today.
    Amen
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • Originally posted by parihaka
      Amen
      So, who are the candidates for Lead Nations?

      Amongst those who have done it.

      Canada
      India
      Australia
      Italy
      Britain
      United States
      France

      Not a very big list and certainly not enough troops to go everywhere.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
        So, who are the candidates for Lead Nations?

        Amongst those who have done it.

        Canada
        India
        Australia
        Italy
        Britain
        United States
        France

        Not a very big list and certainly not enough troops to go everywhere.
        I'd be happy to throw in NZ if you need lawyers
        But not Holland or Germany? And aren't Japan sniffing around the issue?
        I must admit when I look at a world map it's depressing how much of it I write off for stepping up to the plate.
        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

        Leibniz

        Comment


        • Lead Nation Operations are not blue beret operations but are approved by the UN. In this regard, there are very few such operation, the 1st being the Indian International Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka. Since these are not UN operations, the troops do not answer to a UN command but their own national command.

          (right off the bat, can you see that you can't get away with the crap you can get away with under UN command? What's the UN going to do? Send you home? What's your General going to do? Make your life a miserable hell.)

          Historically speaking, there are very few such operations and hence, very few chances for countries to step forward to take the lead. Usually, a national interest is involved such as East Timor. Other times, they're the only ones who can do it such as the Americans in Somalia.

          Germany and Holland has taken command of the ISAF in Afghanistan but the Brits were the Lead Nation in the ISAF in that they were the 1st in with sufficent force to command the situation around Kabul.

          Japan is looking to contribute but they are far, far away from being capable of commanding a force on their own.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
            Lead Nation Operations are not blue beret operations but are approved by the UN. In this regard, there are very few such operation, the 1st being the Indian International Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka. Since these are not UN operations, the troops do not answer to a UN command but their own national command.
            Sorry, my miss-read
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
            (right off the bat, can you see that you can't get away with the crap you can get away with under UN command? What's the UN going to do? Send you home? What's your General going to do? Make your life a miserable hell.)
            I'm strongly reminded of your story of the UN Cluster**** who tried to tell you to surrender your weapons to a couple of teenage boys. ;)

            I like the idea of 'Lead Nation Operations', the UN would provide legitimacy but the operational parameters are defined by the nation or nations and their ROE's.
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • Originally posted by parihaka
              I like the idea of 'Lead Nation Operations', the UN would provide legitimacy but the operational parameters are defined by the nation or nations and their ROE's.
              Problem is who will step up? None of the African countries are willing; even in their own backyard. They had to beg the USMC to lead a force into Liberia. The USMC stayed less than 30 days.

              As I stated before, if you have one Lead Country willing to go into Dufar; everybody else including the US would fall in right behind. No one has stepped up thus far.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                Problem is who will step up? None of the African countries are willing; even in their own backyard. They had to beg the USMC to lead a force into Liberia. The USMC stayed less than 30 days.

                As I stated before, if you have one Lead Country willing to go into Dufar; everybody else including the US would fall in right behind. No one has stepped up thus far.
                What's wrong with the Saudis/Egyptians/Kuwaitis/ et al? It's not like they've got any pressing engagements in their own regions, and certainly the House of Saud isn't pressed for cash.
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • The Saudis and Kuwaitis are military incompetants. I wouldn't trust them to tie their shoe lace. Don't know about the Eygptians. They could very well stablize the region but they don't want to.

                  Comment


                  • Then we're back to square one.
                    No Lead Nations
                    No Blue Beret operations
                    Even if there were a workable permanent UN ready reaction force, no one seems to even want to raise the subject

                    Seems to me there are Countries in the region who could take care of this, Egypt, Turkey?, but no one seems to care one whit for what is going on. I guess they're conditioned to the "Uncle Sam/West will take care of it, and then we'll ***** about them."
                    Last edited by Parihaka; 05 May 06,, 03:54.
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • Unless of course the UN were willing to suddenly start contracting this sort of thing out to private contractors............
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • And deny much needed funds for 3rd World countries who uses the UN Peacekeeping as income?

                        It's not the lack of availbale force. The AU is in there right now. It's the lack of will. As I stated. The AU troops could either get in the way of the thugs or get out of the way of the thugs.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                          And deny much needed funds for 3rd World countries who uses the UN Peacekeeping as income?

                          It's not the lack of availbale force. The AU is in there right now. It's the lack of will. As I stated. The AU troops could either get in the way of the thugs or get out of the way of the thugs.
                          I'm thinking more along the lines of contracting out the leadership, or having a pool of talent always available. There's plenty of competent military officers out there.
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • And deny some 3rd World General the prestige and punctured the Old Boys Club? Not going to happen, even by your country and mine. The UN asks our countries for Staff Officers; even without the backing contingent. We're not to give that up.

                            General Romeo Dallaire took the Rwanda assingment not because he was qualified but because it was Canada's turn to supply a General and Gen Dallaire needed to get his career ticket stamped.

                            Comment


                            • And this problem is not going to change with or without a replacement for the UN. An alliance of democratic countries wasn't interested in Rwanda and they ain't interested in Dufar. Replacing the UN is not going to change that.

                              Comment


                              • I'm no lawyer but there are plenty who think it was.

                                Meaningless
                                What I meant by this was that there is a considerable body of legal opinion that argues that the war was illegal. You may well disagree.I simply meant that I didnt want the arguement to descend into a whole legal debate into the legality of the war - there are enough convincing arguements on both sides to render the discussion in the "agree to disagree" category.

                                Oil-for-Food
                                I do know about the oil for food allegations... They are allegations not convictions.. For the moment, I will choose to go with "innocent until proven guilty". We can - and have - accused most of the worlds premier politicians of some degree of corruption. It doesnt mean that they are, and doesnt disqualify them from commenting on something that is within their remit, i.e the legality of the war.

                                Sure we were, especially when he reported definitive evidence of Iraq physically breaking the cease-fire.
                                You mean except for the delivery systems, precursors and hidden research Mr. Blix reported finding?
                                Fair points and having done more research - lol - i understand your view better. However, my original point stands.. What difference would 8 weeks have made?

                                Fair comment that over a decade hadnt persuaded Saddam to disarm.. but equally, would 8 weeks have made any difference, or made the USA any more unsafe than the previous decade had?

                                No.

                                The 8 weeks might have allowed the USA/UK to make the war legitimate in the eyes of the international community. It would have allowed a greater concentration of ground forces. It might have meant a true global alliance if, as you argue, Blix would have found more evidence of non compliance. The sad thing is that this little bit of extra time was not allowed.

                                The problems with Iran are truely the worst thing about the Iraq war. US hands are much more tied against Iran than they otherwise would have been. With no Iraq war, the US would feel much freer to act unilaterally... They would be far more likely to reach a consensus in the UN over action. They wouldnt have a considerable % of their land forces tied down in counter-insurgency.

                                All your suggestions about changing the UN are laudable. But equally, given the backing by the international community, they are all achievable within the UN. There is no need for a different body. The same body with the will to enforce its rules, and look to actively promote freedom could do what you want. The reason it fails to do so is because the will of the powerful nations is not there, unless it suits its their own interests. No new organisation would be any more successful for the same reason.

                                As an closing point, I would like to applaud Confed999 and OoE for a mature, extremely interesting and well thought out debate, which didnt have the pointless name calling etc of other debates.. most invigorating..

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X