Originally posted by AlphaOne
Well I dont know what to make of this but one thing is clear an that the UN is at this time useless It cant enforce its arguments against enine enimore and it sucks when we speak of peace keeping that is why the US is so involved with its own personal troops in most hot zones around the globe some lgit and some not so legit but that is beside th point.
[/b]
I have a headache. Care to check your spelling?
First, head to
www.un.org and do some basic research on the institution. Then proceed.
UN is a discussion forum. It is meant to solve the problems of the world by using interaction, participant states' resources, peaceful approach an so on. It is also bound by what is called Security Council. Most of the people in the world have heard of it.
Now, nowhere in UN's mission it is stated that UN should have own army, weapons, whatever. Besides, under who's control would they be? SC - a combo of different nations with different interests? General Convention - hell no! Head Secretary? Some new weirdo council? Who would they be responsible to - themselves?
UN's peacekeeping duties have included places like Suez, Cyprus, Yugoslavian cluster****, East Timor, Lebanon, Angola, Haiti, Cambodia, Afghanistan and so on. Some of the missions have been successful, some of them less so. The key point, however, is that on the last hand everything relies on the member states. UN could announce a peacekeeping/enforcing action in Iraq, but whether it would pass the SC or anyone would actually send anything except their goodwillingness and condolences is completely another matter. Now comes the part of your post which I do not understand at all. To prevent misunderstanding, I'll keep my filthy sweaty hands that have ventured to places where the sun does not shine off it.
The point is that the UN is useless (mi own opinion). And giving the UN nuclear weapons is not the solution on the contrary, but what I agree is the fact that th UN needs a powerfull milatary and to be more independent not serving varios powerfull goverments across the globe.
[/b]
HOW WOULD IT GAIN THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO? Would they just be granted with absolute power? Who would decide of it? It's a bit hard to say "hey, we now have absolute control over you and **** you if you want to have anything to say about it". Success of such an institution would be counted in months, if not days.
Of course, examples like, oh, Gulf War 1 and well, Korean war have shown that sometimes, when the decision not sunk by some permanent SC member, UN has given legitimacy to perform acts of war. Whoever has the willingness and firepower to achieve the goal would then be granted the right to **** **** up.
They should take an example from the EU wich is now tring to be form its own police and own milatary force to protect its interests.
As far as I am concerned go EU go EU:yes:
But EU is not a huge international forum of hundreds of different cultures, but instead a market and political area with 25 countries who share much more united history and culture than let's say UK and Congo.
