A solution to non-American interest conflicts.

[elsid13]

After watching the documentary entitled “Liberia: Uncivil War” , I came up with question: Would the American public support the development of permanent professional paramilitary peacekeeping force under UN control. The force would be drawn from the permanent members (which would expand to have India, Germany and Japan) of the UN Security Council and be under its direct control to handle the conflicts where nations don’t have a national security interest. The force would be at least 10 000 strong and would include some armor (APC) and other organic support units. Mission would be to provided stability and policing actions until local parties could negotiate peacefully solutions thru UN meditations. General members of UN would provided ad hoc logistic support, engineering and medical support as required.

This would remove American from acting as World Policemen but still solve some of human conflicts.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

You know it sounds like a good idea on the surface, but in my opinion the UN has become so corrupt and crippled by politics that it is no longer effective in its original mission.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Big Guy

You know it sounds like a good idea on the surface, but in my opinion the UN has become so corrupt and crippled by politics that it is no longer effective in its original mission.

I agree a lot of that corruption comes from 3rd world personnel supporting the UN. It part culture and part opperunity to earn some money for themselves and thier family. That why the force would need to come from more stable countries.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Originally Posted by elsid13

I agree a lot of that corruption comes from 3rd world personnel supporting the UN. It part culture and part opperunity to earn some money for themselves and thier family. That why the force would need to come from more stable countries.

But if those corrupt third world countries have the clout to call the shots in the UN it would not work.

[Rascal]

Isn't there an african force already made to do such a thing in that region?

The main problem would be the UN sending in multinational troops to a region and one nation not agreeing with it and sending their troops back home. That is one thing that happened in Rawanda.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Rascal

Isn't there an african force already made to do such a thing in that region?

The main problem would be the UN sending in multinational troops to a region and one nation not agreeing with it and sending their troops back home. That is one thing that happened in Rawanda.

Rascal, there is a African force "acting" a regional peace keeping, but it badly trained and ill equiped.

The key part of this proposal would be that personnel would not report to their home countries, but fall under the UN security council control. So France could not pull its' people, since they work for the UN and not France.

[Rascal]

Sorry but no...I don't want American troops under some french moron. If they volunteered for it then that is something else...but I don't want enlisted soldiers suddenly taking their orders from Geneva instead of the pentagon.

[W*GS]

Giving the UN an actual military would be a huge mistake.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Giving the UN an actual military would be a huge mistake.

It would be paramilitary force, not an actual military. Think heavy duty police force. The armour referred to is for armored personnel carrier, not tanks.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by elsid13

It would be paramilitary force, not an actual military. Think heavy duty police force. The armour referred to is for armored personnel carrier, not tanks.

Giving the UN any more power - of any kind, no matter how small - is not a good idea.

The UN is nothing more than a talking-shop for governments and a cushy assignment for diplomats. I'd rather see the UN HQ in Darfur than in NYC.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Giving the UN any more power - of any kind, no matter how small - is not a good idea.

The UN is nothing more than a talking-shop for governments and a cushy assignment for diplomats. I'd rather see the UN HQ in Darfur than in NYC.

I understand your position, I started this thread to look at alternatives/opinions to US acting as the World Policemen, especial in countries that really have no bearing on your national security.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by elsid13

I understand your position, I started this thread to look at alternatives/opinions to US acting as the World Policemen, especial in countries that really have no bearing on your national security.

Well the only real hotbed of continuous action, besides Iraq, is obviously Africa. Europe will take care of itself through the UN (which is basically a POS European club house anyway but I digress) and Asia is relatively cool although there are some obvous problems.

So basically the area to be addressed is Africa.

IMO the way to secure this region is several pronged.

1) Economic aid to help with their massive food shortage problems
2) Address their Aids epidemic
3) Their continuous tribal warfare requires an AFRICAN multinational force
4) The world must crack down on dealing with corrupt and unmoral regimes.

Number is two is kind of at the mercy of doctors and scientists some I'm going to ignore that...besides not having extra-marital or protective sex would help with that obviously.

As mentioned above their needs to be a fully developed and fully funded (mostly by UN but Africa should help as well) military/police force. The UN won't send their troops in and we can't do everything so let them take care of themselves by training and equipping a LEGITIMATE ORGANIZTION.

The military/police force will help with the food shortage problems but there needs to be programs to develop Africa as a whole.

Contries like France, Russia, etc (and sometimes US) must not deal with corrupt/unmoral regimes. Don't give them any support (arms, money, etc). You list any conflict there and you will see the people who are committing the atrocity have often been funded by a major nation.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

We can always count on LABF to exploit the horrors of Nazism and Nazis for his pathetic political gain.

It's interesting that he finds the views of Goering to be worthwhile.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by W*GS

We can always count on LABF to exploit the horrors of Nazism and Nazis for his pathetic political gain.

It's interesting that he finds the views of Goering to be worthwhile.

Goering's quote seems to have hit home, hard to deny that.

[elsid13]

Gentleman

What does Goering have anything to do with this thread? When I started it, my motive was trying to start logical discussion to see what would be accepted ways for World might be able to solve the problems of 3rd World civil unrest without always sending in American or Western Troops. I have proposed one idea, Rascal has provided an alternative, do have you anything to add or propose?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by elsid13

After watching the documentary entitled “Liberia: Uncivil War” , I came up with question: Would the American public support the development of permanent professional paramilitary peacekeeping force under UN control. The force would be drawn from the permanent members (which would expand to have India, Germany and Japan) of the UN Security Council and be under its direct control to handle the conflicts where nations don’t have a national security interest. The force would be at least 10 000 strong and would include some armor (APC) and other organic support units. Mission would be to provided stability and policing actions until local parties could negotiate peacefully solutions thru UN meditations. General members of UN would provided ad hoc logistic support, engineering and medical support as required.

This would remove American from acting as World Policemen but still solve some of human conflicts.

Won't work as long as countires have something other countries want (like oil, water, food etc...). And as long as countries have leaders that will attack other countries that are no threat to them.
A multi-national attack force would only work in certain small conflicts, if at all.
A solution to our problems would be to move away from oil as fast as possible so we don't have to worry about what these oil countries in the ME do. Then they all could kill each other over different sects interpertation of the religion they live and die by.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by The O'W*GS Factor

We can always count on LABF to exploit the horrors of Nazism and Nazis for his pathetic political gain.

We can always count on The O'W*GS Factor to put the Faux News-style spin (not to mention the compositional fallacy, i.e., misrepresenting a comparison of one aspect of BushCo's tactics to Nazism as a categorical comparison) on a valid comparison of BushCo and Nazi tactics.

Originally Posted by The O'W*GS Factor

It's interesting that he finds the views of Goering to be worthwhile.

It's interesting that O"W*GS seems oblivious to the notion that those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Goering's quote seems to have hit home, hard to deny that.

Indeed.

In fact, it describes the mentality of those rightards who denounced those Americans who warned against the folly of invading Iraq as "traitors" and "America-haters" perfectly.

[W*GS]

I apologize for responding to LABF's attempt at thread-shifting, elsid13.