NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I've been thinking.....

The United Nations, I suppose, does a descent job in writing up resolutions and sanctions. However, when the time comes for the resolutions and sanctions to be enforced, I don't think the UN has the back bone for it.

What would you think about having an International World Police?
Some of the stonger nations would put together a large military body that would be able to enforce the resolutions and sanctions deadlines, to assist in the safety of Humanitarian aide, Peace keeping, etc...

Okay, I've been thinking.....

The United Nations, I suppose, does a descent job in writing up resolutions and sanctions. However, when the time comes for the resolutions and sanctions to be enforced, I don't think the UN has the back bone for it.

What would you think about having an International World Police?
Some of the stonger nations would put together a large military body that would be able to enforce the resolutions and sanctions deadlines, to assist in the safety of Humanitarian aide, Peace keeping, etc...

Personally think we should just replace the UN with a similar organization that does not have built in debilitating structural problems … such as giving everyone veto power

But if we actually give them the balls to act I think the US is going to be all bitchy about it. We always bitch about being world police … but being such gives us a level of control. I don’t think they will like loosing that control when the un decides against our interests or with what we had planned

Okay, I've been thinking.....

The United Nations, I suppose, does a descent job in writing up resolutions and sanctions. However, when the time comes for the resolutions and sanctions to be enforced, I don't think the UN has the back bone for it.

What would you think about having an International World Police?
Some of the stonger nations would put together a large military body that would be able to enforce the resolutions and sanctions deadlines, to assist in the safety of Humanitarian aide, Peace keeping, etc...

*Paragraph of Team America Jokes*

Who would decide what side they take? I'm sure that if a number of countries form this organisation, that a few of them will have differing opinions on an awful lot of things, unless you formed an alliance between Canada, New Zealand & Sweden :D

The problem is that some resolutions may be more difficult to enforce than others. Maybe we invaded Iraq for violating a Security Council resolution. Keep this in mind, though - Israel violates resolutions from the General Assembly constantly, mainly because a number of them are directed at Israel personally. Good luck getting the U.S. to enforce a resolution against Israel when it probably doesn't see what the big deal is about whacking Hezbollah upside the head or whatever.

Sure, a world police force would be immensely useful, if people were dedicated to allowing it to do its effing job. The problem is that it would be so bogged down with rules and red tape that it would likely not even be able to rescue a cat out of a tree without the UN taking a vote on it at least six times.

I think one thing people fear from a more powerful UN is a "one world government." If the UN were more powerful, it might mandate certain domestic policies among its members. The current limitations on UN power help to keep the UN from interfering in national sovereignty. That is certainly a good thing. The key here, I think, is to increase the UN's power to enforce its policies without increasing its power to make policies.

http://images.nzcinema.co.nz/movies/images/Team_America_World_Police_511_medium.jpg

The problem is that some resolutions may be more difficult to enforce than others. Maybe we invaded Iraq for violating a Security Council resolution. Keep this in mind, though - Israel violates resolutions from the General Assembly constantly, mainly because a number of them are directed at Israel personally. Good luck getting the U.S. to enforce a resolution against Israel when it probably doesn't see what the big deal is about whacking Hezbollah upside the head or whatever.

Sure, a world police force would be immensely useful, if people were dedicated to allowing it to do its effing job. The problem is that it would be so bogged down with rules and red tape that it would likely not even be able to rescue a cat out of a tree without the UN taking a vote on it at least six times.
The question that needs to be asked here is this: By rescuing the cat from the tree, aren't we incouraging other cats to get stuck in trees? Then the terrorists win, see.

OK, who is going to be in charge? hmmmm


hmmmmm


SURELY NOT THE AMERICANS!?!?


TEAM AMERICA! WORLD POLICE


LMAO:headbang: If it wasn't so scary I would laugh harder.

Yeah, the army is comprised of the armies of the largest countries.


What happens when you need to take international military action against one of those larger countries? They pull their part of the international military and say "fuck off", that's what.

People don't like it when things aren't on their side, or they're not in control. The UN is a figurehead, and on its best days it can slightly sway an economy with sanctions, but past that it's nothing, and any facsimile thereof will be just as ineffective.

I don't think most UN members would accept the World Police, as it is a strong limitation of their own sovereignity (?). And surely they won't if it is made by stronger countries only. What do you think the US (as strong country) and Israel (as country with lots of resolution breaching) would do if the UN were to send US soldiers to give back at gun's point to the Palestinians the occupied territories? Complete hell.
Of course the richer countries have to contribute more to the UN. It is ridiculous that Italy is currently the greatest contributor (in terms of manpower) to UN military missions. Where are giants like the US, Russia, Brazil, India and China?

Anyway, the idea of UN is getting things done by diplomacy rather than strength. The current UNIFIL mission is a good example of an intelligent intervention in a crisis area.

Any attempts to create a police force and a judicial body to keep nations accountable will be stopped by any nation powerful enough to do so. The countries with veto power in the security council will do everything possible to maintain that power over the rest of the world.

BTW: the UN needs to be radically reformed. The security council might have been ok during the Cold War, but, today, it is only a place for the greatest power to use veto.
Also I don't understand why should we have Germany as permanent member, along with France and UK: why not just a common EU seat? Oh, and if Japan also is to enter the council, why not Italy? So we'd have both WW2 blocks in it.
The permanent membership at the UN security council is a fraud, that's what it is. No one should be permanent. (I know it's utopia).

BTW: the UN needs to be radically reformed. The security council might have been ok during the Cold War, but, today, it is only a place for the greatest power to use veto.
Also I don't understand why should we have Germany as permanent member, along with France and UK: why not just a common EU seat? Oh, and if Japan also is to enter the council, why not Italy? So we'd have both WW2 blocks in it.
The permanent membership at the UN security council is a fraud, that's what it is. No one should be permanent. (I know it's utopia).

The only permanent members of the Security Council are USA, Russia, Britain, France, and China. Those were the the major powers at the time the UN was created. Coincidence? I think not!

I don't think most UN members would accept the World Police, as it is a strong limitation of their own sovereignity (?).

And what would they do about it?

Personally think we should just replace the UN with a similar organization that does not have built in debilitating structural problems … such as giving everyone veto power

UN without veto mean that all the decisions will decided by the majority.
the majority of countries in the world are relatively small dictatorship with corruption, daily abuse of human rights and weak economies.
I don't think it will help to give them the full control of the global issues.

international problems should be dealt by the major powers as most of those in the security council. full democracy isn't the answer.

The question that needs to be asked here is this: By rescuing the cat from the tree, aren't we incouraging other cats to get stuck in trees? Then the terrorists win, see.

Only if the terrorists are in alliance with the trees.

The UN is currently debating the Issue of a United Nations Standing Army. The idea, on paper, seems decent: A Force totally dedicated and trained to handle peacekeeping operations and humanitarian aid missions.


Problem is:

A. Where do you get recruits? Most governments won't be fond of UN Recruiting Offices getting more applicants than their Army, or even recruits at all!

B. Who is going to Command it?

C, and most importantly..: How do we know it won't result in a World Government, which the UN is not supposed to be.

Interpol with teeth would be a decent place to start.

Interpol with teeth would be a decent place to start.

*nods*

Giving the UN some more powers would help as well. All well and good for them to condemn genocide, wail about how awful it is and then when some genocide occurs they do absoultely nothing. The UN is good at condemning things after the fact and worthless at prevention or intervention.

*nods*

Giving the UN some more powers would help as well. All well and good for them to condemn genocide, wail about how awful it is and then when some genocide occurs they do absoultely nothing. The UN is good at condemning things after the fact and worthless at prevention or intervention.

The UN's problem, is that it only uses Sanctions, on nations which have been sanctioned to full capacity already! How can we possibly sanction North Korea any more than we already do? Is it humanly possible?

Personally think we should just replace the UN with a similar organization that does not have built in debilitating structural problems … such as giving everyone veto power

But if we actually give them the balls to act I think the US is going to be all bitchy about it. We always bitch about being world police … but being such gives us a level of control. I don’t think they will like loosing that control when the un decides against our interests or with what we had planned

Only the five permanent members of the Security Council can veto Security Council resolutions: The US, the UK, China, Russia and France.

And it really does come down to how much sovereignty a nation is willing to give up. For instance, if Mexico were to get a resolution passed against the US because of the border fence (whether or not it was fair of Mexico to even bring it up), would the US allow World Police forces in to take it down? I think not, and until all the nations of the world are willing to do that, a World Police Force isn't worth talking about.

OK, who is going to be in charge? hmmmm


hmmmmm


SURELY NOT THE AMERICANS!?!?


TEAM AMERICA! WORLD POLICE


LMAO:headbang: If it wasn't so scary I would laugh harder.

exactly. world domination for a better tommorow! fast approaching a police state. let them do what the hell they want. world police bah!

Okay, I've been thinking.....

The United Nations, I suppose, does a descent job in writing up resolutions and sanctions. However, when the time comes for the resolutions and sanctions to be enforced, I don't think the UN has the back bone for it.

What would you think about having an International World Police?
Some of the stonger nations would put together a large military body that would be able to enforce the resolutions and sanctions deadlines, to assist in the safety of Humanitarian aide, Peace keeping, etc...

hmm but whywould anyone from the US support this... as of today we already have an international police force... its call the United States Military, and they work in our interest ^.^

When will you U.N.-bashing people finally understand that the U.N. only has the ability to act when at the same time the members contributing to that very resolution grant it the (man-)power to actually do so? The U.N. does not have, nor should it have, a standing army. :rolleyes:

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

exactly. world domination for a better tommorow! fast approaching a police state. let them do what the hell they want. world police bah!

We need something like the Romans used toward the end of the Republic and in the Early Empire. Allied (client) states can do whatever they want except in foreign policy (just please consult with the Senate before taking action), and they should perhaps make a moderate contribution to expenses. Oh, and of course there will be an official on-site to consult in the case a quick answer is needed. Countries that do not toe the line will be warned first and if they continue with their bad behavior, they will be compelled to stop. Compelled in a manner that will discourage a future incident.

I know, it's harsh, but I'm old and curmudgeonly and sometimes just want everyone to freaking behave.

When will you U.N.-bashing people finally understand that the U.N. only has the ability to act when at the same time the members contributing to that very resolution grant it the (man-)power to actually do so? The U.N. does not have, nor should it have, a standing army. :rolleyes:

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

which is why outside of acting as a forum for which dialog may take place.. the United Nations is a largely impotent and otherwise useless structure.

Okay, I've been thinking.....

The United Nations, I suppose, does a descent job in writing up resolutions and sanctions. However, when the time comes for the resolutions and sanctions to be enforced, I don't think the UN has the back bone for it.

What would you think about having an International World Police?
Some of the stonger nations would put together a large military body that would be able to enforce the resolutions and sanctions deadlines, to assist in the safety of Humanitarian aide, Peace keeping, etc...

The UN charter has a provision which says that all member nations will contribute forces so that the UN can work as the world police. Problem is, it never gave a deadline.

Only if the terrorists are in alliance with the trees.
Why didn't we realize this before! Clearly, Arbor Day is part of a massive Islamofascist conspiracy to destroy the West.

the UN is a joke and should be done away with. This way the countries that would actually do something won't feel like they're stepping on toes and will actually move into action.

The UN says mean thing and throws around pieces of paper with harsh words on them. ooooo snazzy! Thats really going to get totalitarian states like N. Korea and Iran to clean up their acts!

Okay, I've been thinking.....

The United Nations, I suppose, does a descent job in writing up resolutions and sanctions. However, when the time comes for the resolutions and sanctions to be enforced, I don't think the UN has the back bone for it.

What would you think about having an International World Police?
Some of the stonger nations would put together a large military body that would be able to enforce the resolutions and sanctions deadlines, to assist in the safety of Humanitarian aide, Peace keeping, etc...

Thing is, no matter how many nations donate, it won't be the strongest unless the USis a part of it.

The UN's problem, is that it only uses Sanctions, on nations which have been sanctioned to full capacity already! How can we possibly sanction North Korea any more than we already do? Is it humanly possible?
Yeah, China gives them shit for being good. This really pissed China off.

Interpol with teeth would be a decent place to start.

Yeah... Interpol. They'll solve potential ethnic or political difficulties around the world....

Personally think we should just replace the UN with a similar organization that does not have built in debilitating structural problems … such as giving everyone veto power

But if we actually give them the balls to act I think the US is going to be all bitchy about it. We always bitch about being world police … but being such gives us a level of control. I don’t think they will like loosing that control when the un decides against our interests or with what we had planned

I believe that is the problem ... for any international organization to be successful in peacekeeping operations, the members of that organization have to be willing to give some of their authority or sovereignty over to that police force.

As an American, I really don't believe that a nation that is run by a non-elected official should have *any* say whatsoever in determining whom the police will be when there is any conflict. That means I'd object to any Saudi participation in any international peace keeping operation, and I've not even started to list off reservations many people around the globe have with bananna republics that are democracies in name only or even corporate democracies, where international coorporations wield a significant amount of control (this is to say, I understand why non-Americans aren't too happy about American military personnel marching through their streets).

I think the problem isn't the UN, but rather our perception that change should be fast paced. Instead I think we just need to realize that although technology is literally reinventing itself every year, that for thousands of years people were not remotely free, and international organizations are all built on the basic concepts of democracy and uni-lateralism ... in other words, humans aren't really ready for a strong UN yet.

Okay, I've been thinking.....

The United Nations, I suppose, does a descent job in writing up resolutions and sanctions. However, when the time comes for the resolutions and sanctions to be enforced, I don't think the UN has the back bone for it.

What would you think about having an International World Police?
Some of the stonger nations would put together a large military body that would be able to enforce the resolutions and sanctions deadlines, to assist in the safety of Humanitarian aide, Peace keeping, etc...

Isn't that what Interpol sorta is?

I believe that is the problem ... for any international organization to be successful in peacekeeping operations, the members of that organization have to be willing to give some of their authority or sovereignty over to that police force.

As an American, I really don't believe that a nation that is run by a non-elected official should have *any* say whatsoever in determining whom the police will be when there is any conflict. That means I'd object to any Saudi participation in any international peace keeping operation, and I've not even started to list off reservations many people around the globe have with bananna republics that are democracies in name only or even corporate democracies, where international coorporations wield a significant amount of control (this is to say, I understand why non-Americans aren't too happy about American military personnel marching through their streets).

I think the problem isn't the UN, but rather our perception that change should be fast paced. Instead I think we just need to realize that although technology is literally reinventing itself every year, that for thousands of years people were not remotely free, and international organizations are all built on the basic concepts of democracy and uni-lateralism ... in other words, humans aren't really ready for a strong UN yet.



I agree that we (especially US citzens) expect too much from the UN. We expect this very young world institution to solve all of the many problems that crop up almost daily in a matter of days. It is a nearly impossible task for any instutition let alone one that has too seek the approval of several nations that often have conflicting agendas on how to solve the worlds problems. I suspect that humans are ready for a strong UN, but many national leaders are not yet ready to give up even a tiny bit of national sorvereignty.

The UN's problem, is that it only uses Sanctions, on nations which have been sanctioned to full capacity already! How can we possibly sanction North Korea any more than we already do? Is it humanly possible?

Hey, North Korea tests a nuclear weapon and no one can do anything about it. I'm sure the psycho running that nation is feeling pretty good right about now.

Okay, I've been thinking.....

The United Nations, I suppose, does a descent job in writing up resolutions and sanctions. However, when the time comes for the resolutions and sanctions to be enforced, I don't think the UN has the back bone for it.

What would you think about having an International World Police?
Some of the stonger nations would put together a large military body that would be able to enforce the resolutions and sanctions deadlines, to assist in the safety of Humanitarian aide, Peace keeping, etc...We already have that. It's called the UN Security Council. The fact that it doesn't work as well as we'd like is a testament to the fact that "getting a bunch of the stronger nations together" isn't going to work any better than that.

The only permanent members of the Security Council are USA, Russia, Britain, France, and China. Those were the the major powers at the time the UN was created. Coincidence? I think not!

Germany is very likely to become 6th permanent member. Look at the talks with Iran.

And what would they do about it?

Raise their populations against them and kill them all, of course. People tend to hate invaders.
Hasn't Viet-Nam taught anything? In 30 years, they beat Japanese, French and American invaders.

I agree that we (especially US citzens) expect too much from the UN. We expect this very young world institution to solve all of the many problems that crop up almost daily in a matter of days. It is a nearly impossible task for any instutition let alone one that has too seek the approval of several nations that often have conflicting agendas on how to solve the worlds problems. I suspect that humans are ready for a strong UN, but many national leaders are not yet ready to give up even a tiny bit of national sorvereignty.

We Europeans have already given up some sovereignity to a little thing called the European Union.

We Europeans have already given up some sovereignity to a little thing called the European Union.

Yes, you certainly have and you are a good example to the rest of the world.