NationStates Jolt Archive

In past conflicts like Rwanda The United Nations sent in a "peace-keeping" force to help tame the situation, but it was out of there jurisdiction to fire unless fired upon, there in by making them completely useless.

What is needed is an army that when voted one by 2 to 1 vote of United nations can act on genocide, terror regimes, and other atrocities. This will help prevent Genocide, and also help better unite the United Nations by having an equal share in the army, the time for th UN's inaction is over! this is the time where the UN actually stands up for what it believes in rather then just sitting by in the sidelines

Your suggestion is illegal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) on so many levels.

Just to be a little more explicit than Gruen :P , there are rules than disallow the UN from having a standing army of any nature.

1. What is "Rwanda"? It sounds like a country in a fictional place called the Real World.

2. A UN army is illegal.

3. You seem to be confusing the NS UN with the Real World UN.

Besides, the UN does not need an army, it has gnomes. If the UN says there is no genocide, then all UN nations comply, lest they be devoured by the gnomes.

Besides, the UN does not need an army, it has gnomes. If the UN says there is no genocide, then all UN nations comply, lest they be devoured by the gnomes.http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/notagain.jpg

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/notagain.jpg

\me read it as tongue-in-cheek