NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this is so that the discussion that started up in the thread about the pope's homophobia can be continued appropriately...

Should the UN be given authorities that will allow it to actually be effective in its dedicated responsibilities?

Ok, this is so that the discussion that started up in the thread about the pope's homophobia can be continued appropriately...

Should the UN be given authorities that will allow it to actually be effective in its dedicated responsibilities?

No, and none of the more powerful nations on Earth would allow it.

Yes. The last thing we need is another League of Nations.

We already have UN troops after all.

Yes. The last thing we need is another League of Nations.

We already have UN troops after all.

Like these

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4156819.stm

No, and none of the more powerful nations on Earth would allow it.

Then what authority should there be to try and prevent genocides, keep peace and protect civilians?

It's easy to say "no", let's see if you've got any better solutions in mind.

Like these

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4156819.stm

They're soldiers, what do you expect?

Then what authority should there be to try and prevent genocides, keep peace and protect civilians?

It's easy to say "no", let's see if you've got any better solutions in mind.

There isn't a solution, unless one nation subjugates the entire world, and forces a new education on the next few generations of children.

They're soldiers, what do you expect?

Funny, we don't see child sex stories coming out of Iraq.

There isn't a solution, unless one nation subjugates the entire world, and forces a new education on the next few generations of children.

Hiveminds are overrated

How hypocritical that Hotwife should criticize the UN in it's inability to do it's job but refuse categorically to give it the power to do it's job.

Hiveminds are overrated

That too. It's a solution, but not a pretty one.

How hypocritical that Hotwife should criticize the UN in it's inability to do it's job but refuse categorically to give it the power to do it's job.

No current powerful nation would give it that authority either. So I'm in good company.

Funny, we don't see child sex stories coming out of Iraq.

One, two, three...

ABU GHRAIB.

One, two, three...

ABU GHRAIB.

Wasn't child sex, sorry. Wasn't forced prostitution, either.

No current powerful nation would give it that authority either. So I'm in good company.

So, we've established that you're a hypocrite that is in good company?

Wasn't child sex, sorry. Wasn't forced prostitution, either.

It was "only" torture and rape, then. Goodie.

It was "only" torture and rape, then. Goodie.

Forced prostitution of children pulls at the heartstrings a bit more.

It's not the only place the UN has done this. It's endemic with their peacekeepers.

Ok, this is so that the discussion that started up in the thread about the pope's homophobia can be continued appropriately...

Should the UN be given authorities that will allow it to actually be effective in its dedicated responsibilities?

Yes, only if some reforms are taken (not very likely, I know)
1.Reform the security council by having not countries in it, but people elected for the office by the general assembly: it should become like the cabinet of a parliamentary republic. A regulation could guarantee that no continent (or no geographical area) is underrepresented in it (like the EU commission, with one commissary each country, but with the commissary being independent from his country's government).
2.Also goodbye to veto power and permanent membership in the security council.
3.Single seat for EU (it makes no sense for the EU to act like 27 separated entities at the UN). Also, away with separate seats for USA dependencies etc.
4.Mandatory partecipation to the international tribunals as requirement for full membership.

I fear that an effective UN is something of a dream.

Wasn't child sex, sorry. Wasn't forced prostitution, either.

Oh, please. So it was torture instead, and since that's not the same as forced prostitution it's perfectly ok?

Forced prostitution of children pulls at the heartstrings a bit more.

It's not the only place the UN has done this. It's endemic with their peacekeepers.

Then lets give them the power to punish the peacekeepers.

Oh wait. That would be giving it the power to do its job. We can't have that.

Oh, please. So it was torture instead, and since that's not the same as forced prostitution it's perfectly ok?

No, you're the one saying that since there was Abu Gharaib, it's ok that the UN forces children into prostitution.

Forced prostitution of children pulls at the heartstrings a bit more.

It's not the only place the UN has done this. It's endemic with their peacekeepers.

So now your heartstrings are the legal indicator of what actions can be excused and what can't? Wow.

And rape and torture of all kinds seems to be endemic in absolutely every single army on the planet.

Funny, we don't see child sex stories coming out of Iraq.

Only embedded journalists allowed, does anyone remember?
Maybe not child sex stories, but I bet there is a lot of things we'll NEVER know about the invasion of Iraq and what our nice western soldiers did there.

No, you're the one saying that since there was Abu Gharaib, it's ok that the UN forces children into prostitution.

No. I'm saying UN soldiers are soldiers like all others.
It's best to keep as far away from them as possible.

The idea of Heikoku 2 that abiding to some rules such as the declaration of human rights be a pre-requisite to inclusion in the UN have some merit.

The idea of Heikoku 2 that abiding to some rules such as the declaration of human rights be a pre-requisite to inclusion in the UN have some merit.

See? I'm not COMPLETELY insane.

See? I'm not COMPLETELY insane.

Never said you were. You're just an over-the-top drama queen who has a penchant for exageration. But a sane one. ;)

Never said you were. You're just an over-the-top drama queen who has a penchant for exageration. But a sane one. ;)

:p

I had that coming.

Yes. The last thing we need is another League of Nations.

We already have UN troops after all.
We don't have UN troops at all, this is the biggest problem with UNSC resolutions. Giving the UN the authority to recruit and train its own peacekeepers would be incredibly useful.
Like these

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4156819.stm
Aye or indeed the countless thousands of professional blue helmets -_-

Yes, only if some reforms are taken (not very likely, I know)
1.Reform the security council by having not countries in it, but people elected for the office by the general assembly: it should become like the cabinet of a parliamentary republic. A regulation could guarantee that no continent (or no geographical area) is underrepresented in it (like the EU commission, with one commissary each country, but with the commissary being independent from his country's government).
2.Also goodbye to veto power and permanent membership in the security council.
3.Single seat for EU (it makes no sense for the EU to act like 27 separated entities at the UN). Also, away with separate seats for USA dependencies etc.
4.Mandatory partecipation to the international tribunals as requirement for full membership.

I fear that an effective UN is something of a dream.
1. Are you saying the representative for a country should be elected by the rest of the UN?
2. Veto power should stay, only because my country has that power and I like it
3. The EU is not one thing, does the UK act like France, Germany like Ireland or Spain like Poland.

So now your heartstrings are the legal indicator of what actions can be excused and what can't? Wow.

And rape and torture of all kinds seems to be endemic in absolutely every single army on the planet.

I did not realized those raped children were suspected terrorist/insurgence .

While Abu Garif was wrong at least they were for the most part captured adults and vaguely accused of something.

It could never happen.

Funny, we don't see child sex stories coming out of Iraq.

Gang rape of a 14 year old girl and the murder of her and her family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_incident

Ok, this is so that the discussion that started up in the thread about the pope's homophobia can be continued appropriately...

Should the UN be given authorities that will allow it to actually be effective in its dedicated responsibilities?

I vouch for giving it emergency powers to act on behalf of those who're on the verge of massacre or injustices. But these emergency powers must be removed immediately after the emergency's over.

Gang rape of a 14 year old girl and the murder of her and her family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_incident


On August 3, 2007, Pfc. Spielman, 23, was sentenced by a court martial to 110 years in prison, with the possibility of parole after 10 years. He was convicted of rape, conspiracy to commit rape, housebreaking with intent to rape and four counts of felony murder. Spielman had earlier pleaded guilty to lesser charges of conspiracy to obstructing justice, arson, wrongfully touching a corpse and drinking.[11]

Sgt. Paul E. Cortez

On January 22, 2007, Sgt. Cortez pleaded guilty in a court martial to rape, conspiracy to rape, and four counts of murder as part of a plea deal to avoid the death penalty, and was sentenced to 100 years in prison.[9] He will be eligible for parole in 10 years. Cortez, 24, also was given a dishonorable discharge. Cortez wept as he apologized for the crimes, saying he could not explain why he took part.[10]

Spc. James Barker

On November 15, 2006, Spc. Barker pleaded guilty to rape and murder as part of a plea agreement requiring him to give evidence against the other soldiers to avoid the death penalty. He was sentenced to 90 years in prison, and must serve 20 years before being considered for parole. He wept during closing statements, and accepted responsibility for the rape and killings, saying the violence he had encountered in Iraq left him "angry and mean" toward Iraqis.[8]


though you right he likely should have said unpunished/uninvestigated child rape stories.

Gang rape of a 14 year old girl and the murder of her and her family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_incident

Shh! Reality flies in the face of Deep Kimchi.

though you right he likely should have said unpunished/uninvestigated child rape stories.

It is a problem with un-disciplined troops wherever they are from. It is not something specific to UN troops. That it happens with UN troops is something that suggests they do need to invest in better discipline and monitoring.

It was horrible what happened to that family yes, but you cannot apply the same standards of morallity and actions to soldiers, no matter who they serve. These are the people that we train to do something that they has been ingrained into them since birth not to do. So that the idea you can apply the sames standards to the actions of men and women serving in any millitary as you and me, is foolish and navie. Imagine this You are fighting someone that you don't know where they are, who they are and they lend in perfectly with civilians.

It is a problem with un-disciplined troops wherever they are from. It is not something specific to UN troops. That it happens with UN troops is something that suggests they do need to invest in better discipline and monitoring.

the difference is the American soldiers involved are in prison for 90, 100 and 110 ten year sentences.
Whereas not a single UN solider has even been charged. must less tried and convicted.

the difference is the American soldiers involved are in prison for 90, 100 and 110 ten year sentences.
Whereas not a single UN solider has even been charged. must less tried and convicted.
This is why, as I already said, the UN needs its own military. So it can go through its own courts. Make it a properly disciplined force, with a proper recourse to trial if they do anything wrong, and get these people convicted.

Theoretically, shouldnt' the United Nations' encouragement be enough to persuade civilized nations to use their own resources to prevent injustice?

Seeing as I'm a cynic, however, and believe that world powers won't get along for long enough to do this kind of thing, yeah, the UN should have power to do their job. Just because UN soldiers have committed atrocities in the past does not mean the should not exist. Should we remove the US army for Abu Ghraib? Should we remove the Russian army for Chechnya? If we decide that any armed force that has ever done anything bad to civilians should not exist, we soon end up with no armed forces, and no way to prevent anything the UN is trying to prevent. Utilitarianism dictates that the amount of crimes committed by peacekeepers is nowhere near enough to justify removing their power to prevent similar crimes.

This is why, as I already said, the UN needs its own military. So it can go through its own courts. Make it a properly disciplined force, with a proper recourse to trial if they do anything wrong, and get these people convicted.

I'm sorry, but fuck that. The UN needs to be disbanded if anything.

I'm sorry, but fuck that. The UN needs to be disbanded if anything.
Don't see why. Supranational organisations will always, always exist, might as well have one which deals with the entire world.

I'm sorry, but fuck that. The UN needs to be disbanded if anything.Why?

Don't see why. Supranational organisations will always, always exist, might as well have one which deals with the entire world.

Never understood applying international democracy with nations incapable of applying domestic democracy.

Never understood applying international democracy with nations incapable of applying domestic democracy.
Because having the UN act as a blunt tool of whoever's in charge would be pretty shite. That said, I don't know why the UN doesn't just go into Sudan and remove the government sharpish instead of listening to their stupid, stupid complaints about 'sovereignty'.

Never understood applying international democracy with nations incapable of applying domestic democracy.

This.

This.
Uhu... at which point you just get other supranational groups coming in to fill the void. And you're back essentially to square one.

Never understood applying international democracy with nations incapable of applying domestic democracy.

There is logic here.

So would you support McCain's old election idea of a Leage of Democracies? Like a more fortified and global UN?

Additionally: Is it really democratic for the UN to treat a vote from India or China as equal to on efrom, say... Luxembourg?

Because having the UN act as a blunt tool of whoever's in charge would be pretty shite. That said, I don't know why the UN doesn't just go into Sudan and remove the government sharpish instead of listening to their stupid, stupid complaints about 'sovereignty'.

Democracy doesn't mean in power at the time. Venezuela like it or not is a democracy. Imagine the discouragement military coups would face if it would mean losing representation in the UN.


because China Vetos any action in exchange for Sudan oil.

There is logic here.No, it's the argument from ignorance fallacy. No logic at all.
So would you support McCain's old election idea of a Leage of Democracies? Like a more fortified and global UN?And what would they end up doing? You'd still have national sovereignty preventing any involvement not sanctioned by Russia, the US, and China.

There is logic here.
No, there isn't.
So would you support McCain's old election idea of a Leage of Democracies? Like a more fortified and global UN?
No, because it would just make the EU into the US' bitch. "More fortified and global" sounds a lot like "get your arses into Afghanistan or we will veto everything" to me.
Additionally: Is it really democratic for the UN to treat a vote from India or China as equal to on efrom, say... Luxembourg?
No, it's confederalist, in the same way as Electoral College is not actually democratic.

Democracy doesn't mean in power at the time. Venezuela like it or not is a democracy. Imagine the discouragement military coups would face if it would mean losing representation in the UN.
Aye but that never happens, so I don't really see where your argument is coming from here.

The UN is just a supranational body to represent basically anyone who wants to join and isn't too horrible a state.
because China Vetos any action in exchange for Sudan oil.
Aye this is an example of why the Veto needs to be removed from UNSC nations, but keeping it down to about 10 states so nothing retarded happens like a UN-approved attack on China or whatever.

There is logic here.

So would you support McCain's old election idea of a Leage of Democracies? Like a more fortified and global UN?

Additionally: Is it really democratic for the UN to treat a vote from India or China as equal to on efrom, say... Luxembourg?

If it were 1945 and I had say in the matter I would most certainly go the direction of league of democracies.

as for representation Id have two chambers one based off population and another per state. with perhaps the exception of some of the smallest democracies which i would try to group together in some form or another other culturally and linguistically similar democracies for voting purposes.

It would need work.

as for Non Democratic countries let them speak but don't let them vote.
though to be honest the UN is what we got so it is what we have to work with.

The UN works fine.

*unleashes the camel smurfs*
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/UN_Soldiers_in_Eritrea.jpeg)
They're soldiers, what do you expect?

rape and torture of all kinds seems to be endemic in absolutely every single army on the planet.

I can assure you that I have never raped, murdered, tortured or any other such silliness and I doubt I ever will

oh wait all soldiers are evil aren't they? I should be ashamed and people deserve to hurl abuse at me :rolleyes:

1.Reform the security council by having not countries in it, but people elected for the office by the general assembly: it should become like the cabinet of a parliamentary republic. A regulation could guarantee that no continent (or no geographical area) is underrepresented in it (like the EU commission, with one commissary each country, but with the commissary being independent from his country's government).

but then U.N is designed for nations to voice their grievances and ultimately to stop wars

if you suddenly have the inevitable B-list celebrities representing you it all becomes a tad irrelevant much like current E.U politics

Maybe not child sex stories, but I bet there is a lot of things we'll NEVER know about the invasion of Iraq and what our nice western soldiers did there.

unfortunately proof is fairly important considering all the bullshit that is flung about

We don't have UN troops at all, this is the biggest problem with UNSC resolutions. Giving the UN the authority to recruit and train its own peacekeepers would be incredibly useful.

a bunch of idealists and 3rd worlders out for cash an army does not make.

if the UN is stretched thin with the world donating resources how can it hope to stand on its own?

a bunch of idealists and 3rd worlders out for cash an army does not make.
That's what the French Foreign Legion is and that's pretty swish.
if the UN is stretched thin with the world donating resources how can it hope to stand on its own?
Lowering beaurocracy and getting countries to pay more for the privelage of being members.

That's what the French Foreign Legion is and that's pretty swish.

yes and despite all its fame it is only able to provide 7,700 men (which is a sketchy number at best considering the rate desertion)

Lowering beaurocracy

cutting "bureaucracy" is a bit of a buzzer isn't it :p

Person: my house is on fire
Fire brigade: well then you had better cut bureaucracy

getting countries to pay

that will be the day

No...I dont trust them...Im quite certain my Country doesnt trust them...

And even if they had it...Do you think the US Government is actually going to listen?...and if WE dont...who else do you think would?...

Yes, only if some reforms are taken (not very likely, I know)
1.Reform the security council by having not countries in it, but people elected for the office by the general assembly: it should become like the cabinet of a parliamentary republic. A regulation could guarantee that no continent (or no geographical area) is underrepresented in it (like the EU commission, with one commissary each country, but with the commissary being independent from his country's government).
2.Also goodbye to veto power and permanent membership in the security council.
3.Single seat for EU (it makes no sense for the EU to act like 27 separated entities at the UN). Also, away with separate seats for USA dependencies etc.
4.Mandatory partecipation to the international tribunals as requirement for full membership.

I fear that an effective UN is something of a dream.

I am weary of granting any countries executive powers through a process of election. This isn't to say that eventually this won't be a good idea, but right now there are many member countries that are simply too corrupt where the possibility of "buying" votes is far too much a reality.

I vouch for giving it emergency powers to act on behalf of those who're on the verge of massacre or injustices. But these emergency powers must be removed immediately after the emergency's over.

I agree with this. The security council should only be granted veto and certain other executive powers in an emergency situation. Emergency situations, to my mind, are complete infrastructural failure, declarations of war, genocide or civil war. Part of the veto power would be to retroactively veto policies and the like that pertain to the emergency at hand and then those policies be put back up for review and a vote by general assembly after the emergency is over.

I also think the UN does need an official military. In super-awesome-imaginary-land, they'd be a semi-sovereign nation-entity located in an extremely inhospitable climate dependent upon support from member nations for food, energy and the like to maintain a level of codependency that fosters cooperation; this is, unfortunately, admittedly unrealistic.

Ok, this is so that the discussion that started up in the thread about the pope's homophobia can be continued appropriately...

Should the UN be given authorities that will allow it to actually be effective in its dedicated responsibilities?

Canada is more liberal than almost all other countries on this planet. So I'd be scared of a UN authority.

The UN is an utter failure. There seem to have been more wars under the watch of the UN than ever before. Ambassadors from nations with atrocious human rights records are placed in charge of UN human rights. UN peacekeepers are notorious for child rape and forced prostitution. The entire organization is rife with corruption. I want the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US. We can have diplomatic relations with other nations without that hellhole.

*edit* IIRC, the main excuse for the Iraq War was enforcing a UN resolution. I suggest that without the UN, it would have been harder for Bush to excuse an invasion.

The UN is an utter failure. There seem to have been more wars under the watch of the UN than ever before.I see how you conveniently ignore that the UN has been around about as long as decolonization. There being that many wars has more to do with colonial empires falling apart than there being a UN. In fact, without the UN, certain wars would have been longer or not mitigated in the first place.

Idk if id say that the UN's a failure per say...

Its ineffectual but not really a failure...Social Security and Medicade for example, are ineffective, but....I wouldnt say they are failures...

Like, Barry said, At least they have to look at eachother...which i think is a necessary part of world politics today...

I see how you conveniently ignore that the UN has been around about as long as decolonization. There being that many wars has more to do with colonial empires falling apart than there being a UN. In fact, without the UN, certain wars would have been longer or not mitigated in the first place.

Or we could just return to colonization. Is Germany ready to take over some African countries again ?

Or we could just return to colonization. Is Germany ready to take over some African countries again ?

If theyre willing to have the strain of that shit on their bill....Go for it, lol...

Aww. You guys started without me. :(

Anywho. I guess I'll throw in something.

The United Nations needs it's own professionally recruited reaction forces, to respond to humanitarian crises and threats to world peace the very moment they start to develop.

Under the current status quo, peacekeeping and/or peacebuilding elements are rallied under the banner of the UN in a fantastically disorganised and adhoc manner.

As such, flashpoints can't be nipped in the bud before they spiral out of control. Not only that, but the blue helmets are often handicapped from the start of a mission, in terms of equipment, command structure and morale.

I personally would like to see a number of reaction forces assembled, to be based in Asia, Europe and the Americas. Each soldier recruited by the UN Peackeeping Operations deparment, all loyal to the UN organisation itself.

Aww. You guys started without me. :(

Anywho. I guess I'll throw in something.

The United Nations needs it's own professionally recruited reaction forces, to respond to humanitarian crises and threats to world peace the very moment they start to develop.

Under the current status quo, peacekeeping and/or peacebuilding elements are rallied under the banner of the UN in a fantastically disorganised and adhoc manner.

As such, flashpoints can't be nipped in the bud before they spiral out of control. Not only that, but the blue helmets are often handicapped from the start of a mission, in terms of equipment, command structure and morale.

I personally would like to see a number of reaction forces assembled, to be based in Asia, Europe and the Americas. Each soldier recruited by the UN Peackeeping Operations deparment, all loyal to the UN organisation itself.

I might be willing to support such a proposal....but only if its under the control of the Security Council, to ensure that its not used as an army or invasion force...

It might sound a little science fictioney, but, the wrong secretary-general, and it could happen i think...

I might be willing to support such a proposal....but only if its under the control of the Security Council, to ensure that its not used as an army or invasion force...

It might sound a little science fictioney, but, the wrong secretary-general, and it could happen i think...

A force under the control of the SC would be useless. National interests would just lead to constant vetos.

A force under the control of the SC would be useless. National interests would just lead to constant vetos.

True, but id rather it not going against our, as in the US's Nation Interests...

And that, therein, would be the point, the UN couldnt use it to stop anyone's national interests...

But could use it, in places like Darfur for example...

I can assure you that I have never raped, murdered, tortured or any other such silliness and I doubt I ever will

oh wait all soldiers are evil aren't they? I should be ashamed and people deserve to hurl abuse at me :rolleyes:

A murderous bunch of baby raping bastards we are. Pardon me while I waterboard my underaged Iraqi sex slaves...

A murderous bunch of baby raping bastards we are. Pardon me while I waterboard my underaged Iraqi sex slaves...

No, me first...

No, me first...

You said that no examples of child rape came out of the latest Iraq conflict. You were shown to be wrong.

Where is your retraction?

You said that no examples of child rape came out of the latest Iraq conflict. You were shown to be wrong.

Where is your retraction?

I don't see the post. You'll have to link it.

Show me child rape on the scale that the UN does it - which is nearly every place it goes.

I don't see the post. You'll have to link it.

Here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14266635&postcount=33

It was also quoted here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14266654&postcount=35

and here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14266673&postcount=36

Show me child rape on the scale that the UN does it - which is nearly every place it goes.

Interesting claim. You'll have to support it.

I can think of one other case off the top of my head.

I don't see the post. You'll have to link it.

Show me child rape on the scale that the UN does it - which is nearly every place it goes.

Man what is it with people in authoritative position and sexual abuse of the people they're supposed to protect and care for?

Here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14266635&postcount=33

It was also quoted here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14266654&postcount=35

and here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14266673&postcount=36

No retraction, because it's not on the scale that the UN soldiers do it.

Count up the number of US soldiers who have rotated through Iraq. Count how many soldiers the UN is rotating through their areas - count the incidents.

By orders of magnitude, the UN soldiers are worse.

No retraction, because it's not on the scale that the UN soldiers do it.

Count up the number of US soldiers who have rotated through Iraq. Count how many soldiers the UN is rotating through their areas - count the incidents.

By orders of magnitude, the UN soldiers are worse.

Just because it doesn't happen on the scale of the UN doesn't mean we get to ignore it or assume that it's ok because it's not as bad as it could be.

No retraction, because it's not on the scale that the UN soldiers do it.

Count up the number of US soldiers who have rotated through Iraq. Count how many soldiers the UN is rotating through their areas - count the incidents.

By orders of magnitude, the UN soldiers are worse.

So now you're moving the goalposts?

Another example of US military raping the underage locals:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7238386.stm

Not kids but still rape:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUST24438120080306

Just because it doesn't happen on the scale of the UN doesn't mean we get to ignore it or assume that it's ok because it's not as bad as it could be.

I'm not saying ignore it, or it's ok.

I'm saying the UN is far worse. There have been occasions recently where the mere appearance of blue helmeted UN troops has caused refugees to flee - they know that the UN will just stand by and let the other side shoot them, rape them, pillage them, burn their houses to the ground, and generally fuck them over.

And if that doesn't happen, the UN troops will fuck them over, just for grins.

It's certainly a blow to the perceptions of peacekeeper, and I sincerely hope that any of these offenders are punished to the strictest degree, however, I believe that Hotwife is inflating the issue somewhat.

Might I add that I believe a more solid, organised UN command structure with it's own branch of military police would help root out these kinds of filth from the ranks of otherwise decent soldiers.

It's certainly a blow to the perceptions of peacekeeper, and I sincerely hope that any of these offenders are punished to the strictest degree, however, I believe that Hotwife is inflating the issue somewhat.

Might I add that I believe a more solid, organised UN command structure with it's own branch of military police would help root out these kinds of filth from the ranks of otherwise decent soldiers.

I'm not inflating it. The UN will stand by and watch people get slaughtered.

take a look at the Congo, for a recent example of everything

I'm not inflating it. The UN will stand by and watch people get slaughtered.

take a look at the Congo, for a recent example of everything

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14267473&postcount=75

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14267492&postcount=79

Any answer?

I might be willing to support such a proposal....but only if its under the control of the Security Council, to ensure that its not used as an army or invasion force...

It might sound a little science fictioney, but, the wrong secretary-general, and it could happen i think...

Nope. The force would have to be guaranteed autonomy, directed by the Secretary-General and Under-Secretary of Peacekeeping, otherwise they will be paralysed whilst the UNSC deliberates on whether to deploy. The Rapid Reaction element would be lost.

These forces don't even have to be particularly large, not enough to literally invade nations.

If an invasion such as Korea or Iraq needed to be repeated, the current system could be used.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14267473&postcount=75

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14267492&postcount=79

Any answer?

I'm not moving the goalposts.

Still not the same.

What's going on in the Congo is typical - child rape, forced prostitution, and letting the enemies of any refugees kill, rape, and plunder at will while the UN troops sit idly in plain sight, or even run away.

We're comparing US to UN troops.

We could start with the complete inaction by the UN in Kosovo.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14267473&postcount=75

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14267492&postcount=79

Any answer?

He's not going to back down, as US soldiers can do no wrong, apparently, even when there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

I mean, at least I can admit there is corruption in the UN, and it's peacekeeping forces, just like there's been corruption in the US, and the US forces, as well as practically every other organisation, military or not, in the entire history of the world.

He's not going to back down, as US soldiers can do no wrong, apparently, even when there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

I mean, at least I can admit there is corruption in the UN, and it's peacekeeping forces, just like there's been corruption in the US, and the US forces, as well as practically every other organisation, military or not, in the entire history of the world.

You will note that I did not say US soldiers do no wrong. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I am saying that UN troops are orders of magnitude worse.

That the UN has presided over, or tacitly approved of, more massacres than any armed force since its inception.

Admit that, and we can continue.

We could start with the complete inaction by the UN in Kosovo.

So now you're going to change the subject to Kosovo. Touche.

So now you're going to change the subject to Kosovo. Touche.

The subject is UN troops. The idea that the UN is "protecting". It isn't.

I'm not moving the goalposts.

Still not the same.

You did move the goalposts. You said that there were no stories of child rape coming out of Iraq and you were proved wrong. You then said it wasn't widespread in the US military, I provided links showing it was happening on two continents at least.

What's going on in the Congo is typical - child rape, forced prostitution, and letting the enemies of any refugees kill, rape, and plunder at will while the UN troops sit idly in plain sight, or even run away.

Please source this showing it's the fault of the troops and not of overly tight ROEs, something that could be removed with a more independent UN military force.

We're comparing US to UN troops.

Right, the US troops wait until they've already imprisoned the people before abusing them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

I don't see the post. You'll have to link it.

Show me child rape on the scale that the UN does it - which is nearly every place it goes.

You've still not sourced this claim by the way.

The subject is UN troops. The idea that the UN is "protecting". It isn't.

Actually, I believe the topic was originally the typical vague question of what's wrong with the UN, and how can we sort it. Naturally, like all discussions here concerning the UN, it simply descends into talk of Kosovo, or Rwanda, and then others counter with East Timor, or Cambodia...

I'll just respond by saying that UNPROFOR was failed by the national governments, as well as the Secretary General himself, BB Ghali. The same case in Rwanda. However, these missions where in a time where Peacekeeping operations where still in their developing stages. Today's Peacekeeping Operations Department is no longer what it was more than a decade ago. Lessons have been learned.

That the UN has presided over, or tacitly approved of, more massacres than any armed force since its inception.

Admit that, and we can continue.

Never, because that's just not true.

You did move the goalposts. You said that there were no stories of child rape coming out of Iraq and you were proved wrong. You then said it wasn't widespread in the US military, I provided links showing it was happening on two continents at least.

It's not widespread with the US military. Does it happen? Yes, in any group of 1.4 million people you're bound to have a number of sociopaths, no matter how much they're vetted. Such incidents are rare, aggressively investigated and prosecuted. The US military was suitably embarrassed by Abu Ghraib and other incidents and is very keen to not have that sort of thing happen again.

Funny, we don't see child sex stories coming out of Iraq.

First of all, I'm sure that they're child molesters everywhere. This because it is a phenomenon that does not depend on ones nationality, race, creed or social status. Secondly, I bet they don't have Bagdahd Times Maganize or TV networks to report anything in full scale. And just because you don't hear about it, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

In third place, you are confusing homossexuality with pedophily, which are two complete different things. Homossexuality relys on the choice of which of the sexes one wants to have sexual intercourse with. Pedophily is someone who fulfills his/her sexual desire with minors.

Finally, you seemed to forget the point of this discussion. It's not about UN soldiers having sex with minors, and we all know that's wrong, but is about the freedom of choice of one to have sex with anyone of their likings without having to be punished for it. And please, would somebody shoot that nazi pope? And devide all the possessions of the "holy" church amongst the poor? Bet ya the poverty would end right there!

No retraction, because it's not on the scale that the UN soldiers do it.

Remember: Lift goal posts with your legs, never with your back.

It's not widespread with the US military. Does it happen? Yes, in any group of 1.4 million people you're bound to have a number of sociopaths, no matter how much they're vetted. Such incidents are rare, aggressively investigated and prosecuted. The US military was suitably embarrassed by Abu Ghraib and other incidents and is very keen to not have that sort of thing happen again.

I agree.

However Hotwife has said it is common in UN forces while only providing a single example on one continent, after which there were no convictions. I'm hoping he can provide other examples showing it is a large problem across the world.

Finally, you seemed to forget the point of this discussion. It's not about UN soldiers having sex with minors, and we all know that's wrong, but is about the freedom of choice of one to have sex with anyone of their likings without having to be punished for it. And please, would somebody shoot that nazi pope? And devide all the possessions of the "holy" church amongst the poor? Bet ya the poverty would end right there! That’s not the point of the discussion, and the church needs the cash for the most part. A worldwide organisation doesn’t run itself you know

That the UN has presided over, or tacitly approved of, more massacres than any armed force since its inception.

I just picked up on this comment.

Are you really claiming that the UN, an organisation that the USA is probably the most important and influential member of, has approved of and allowed genocide?

If you believe this has been done on a local level then how many US troops were involved in the specific peacekeeping missions?

Why are some people pointing the finger at "UN" troops, and not the countries they stem from?

Funny little scapegoat that.

Why are some people pointing the finger at "UN" troops, and not the countries they stem from?

Funny little scapegoat that.

Exactly what I've been trying to say. The command structure of UN missions is incredibly factionalized, as it stands now. Pakistanis, Indians, Ukrainians, British, Italians, French. Whoever. All tend to keep their own command structures, and they police themselves internally.

That isn't to say that the Peackeeping Department themselves are exempt from blame when incidents do occur, however at the same time, they often can't do much to prevent criminal activity when the tools of enforcement are out of their hands.

An independant UN force under a single, unambiguous command structure would be much better equipped to police peacekeepers.

I support having a UN force to prevent genocides, etc.

But I am extremely wary of a one-world government. Government is easily corruptable. Giving one government control of our only world poses a grave danger, as it would give dissidents nowhere to flee. There would be no hope of external assistance when the system would begin to fail.

Ok, this is so that the discussion that started up in the thread about the pope's homophobia can be continued appropriately...

Should the UN be given authorities that will allow it to actually be effective in its dedicated responsibilities?
UN officials have already raped women and children in exchange for food and aid, stolen tons in bone-peeling scandals, and haven't really done much of anything to prevent many wars big or small. Why would we want the UN to have more power?

*edit* IIRC, the main excuse for the Iraq War was enforcing a UN resolution. I suggest that without the UN, it would have been harder for Bush to excuse an invasion.
You have to be fucking kidding me. If there was no UN he wouldn't had to waste his time telling people it was for a Resolution's sake and would have just gone ahead with it.

You have to be fucking kidding me. If there was no UN he wouldn't had to waste his time telling people it was for a Resolution's sake and would have just gone ahead with it.

Hardly. He had to sell going to war, and the enforcement of the UN resolution was the main selling point. I wasn't the only one who saw no connection between Hussein and Osama and the WTC attack. Bush had to form a link between Hussein and Osama, and that link was the supposed WMD's. The UN said Iraq would be attacked if they didn't reveal their WMD's, and that excuse was what Bush needed - "they have WMD's, the UN said they needed to be seized, and we're gonna do it!" Don't you remember?

Hardly. He had to sell going to war, and the enforcement of the UN resolution was the main selling point. I wasn't the only one who saw no connection between Hussein and Osama and the WTC attack. Bush had to form a link between Hussein and Osama, and that link was the supposed WMD's. The UN said Iraq would be attacked if they didn't reveal their WMD's, and that excuse was what Bush needed - "they have WMD's, the UN said they needed to be seized, and we're gonna do it!" Don't you remember?

Iirc the UN said that the resolution didn't justify the invasion.

Ok, this is so that the discussion that started up in the thread about the pope's homophobia can be continued appropriately...

Should the UN be given authorities that will allow it to actually be effective in its dedicated responsibilities?

i would say absolutely yes, although it would have to be a somewhat restructured u.n. restructured in precisely the way that current super powers would probably least like to see; i.e. one nation one vote, or perhaps a bicameral world parliment, a senate representing nations and a house of representatives representing populations, with every distinct ethnicity and culture having some sort of vote as well.

then by all means give the teeth, and authority to tax, to make it a real planetary federal system.

it should primarily limit its medling in the internal affairs of nations to the prevention of things like ethnic cleansings (by any other name genocide, no matter how many hairs are split over it) and preventing nations from closing their borders to unarmed civilians wishing to cross them in either direction.

ngo's that arn't industry based, but humanitarian in nature deserve greater recognition and appreaciation too.

Funny, we don't see child sex stories coming out of Iraq.

Um... yeah, we did actually.

Ok, this is so that the discussion that started up in the thread about the pope's homophobia can be continued appropriately...

Should the UN be given authorities that will allow it to actually be effective in its dedicated responsibilities?

Hell no.

That would be another step towards a one world government, and would reduce the power of my country.

Hell no.

That would be another step towards a one world government, and would reduce the power of my country.

Somebody call the waaaaambulance!!!

Somebody call the waaaaambulance!!!

And what point are you trying to make?

And what point are you trying to make?

None. Which is exactly the point your post made. ;)

And what point are you trying to make?
pooowr woss of unfettered and excessive national soverignty. pit-ty!
(just as a guess)
(oops maybe i guessed wrong. still one i kind of like)

None. Which is exactly the point your post made. ;)

I believe I answered the OP's question on if the UN should be given more power, thus my post had a point.

I believe is answered the OP's question on if the UN should be given more power, thus my post had a point.

So you say. Your grammar is appalling, by the way.

I believe is answered the OP's question on if the UN should be given more power, thus my post had a point.
and calli's and mine a better one!

So you say. Your grammar is appalling, by the way.

I think you are just trying to piss me off because you don't like my opinion.

and calli's and mine a better one!

So you think.

and calli's and mine a better one!

*high-fives Cameroi*

I think you are just trying to piss me off because you don't like my opinion.

You make two assertions in this statement. Only one is correct. :tongue:

1. Are you saying the representative for a country should be elected by the rest of the UN?
No, I'm saying that NO countries should be represented in the Security Council. Countries should be in the GA. Individuals should be elected for the SC (an "executive" office) - with some regulation to prevent the formation of an "all-something" security council (all-white, all-european, all-african, all-whatever). Again, reread my post: like in the EU commission.


2. Veto power should stay, only because my country has that power and I like it

That is: you like situations where all are equals but some are more equal than others. Are you a pig named Napoleon?


3. The EU is not one thing, does the UK act like France, Germany like Ireland or Spain like Poland.
The issue about common foreign policy is currently being worked on. Already we have some of it. (See Xavier Solana, or the old trojka)

That’s not the point of the discussion, and the church needs the cash for the most part. A worldwide organisation doesn’t run itself you know

Ok, mea culpa. Maybe I got a little bit too mad at Hotwife, with her full-force attack at the UN, especially when the first subject was personal freedom.

But let's split hairs... The Church does not need that much amount of money. Especially from guys who took vows of poverty. Did you know that a priest wants a car, the church buys it, same deal for mobile phones, about 10 euros per mass plus donations and completely isent from taxes. Ok, they need money to run and maintain their infrastrutures but why the hell do they need golden crowns and staffs? They were supposed to be helping the poor? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that was what J.C. said...

I'm not moving the goalposts.
You may be unaware of this, but it's possible for people to go back in the thread and look at your previous posts. Ain't technology grand?

Let me show you:
Funny, we don't see child sex stories coming out of Iraq.
Gang rape of a 14 year old girl and the murder of her and her family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_incident
Show me child rape on the scale that the UN does it - which is nearly every place it goes.

http://www.uncountedthemovie.com/images/goalposts.jpg

Ok, this is so that the discussion that started up in the thread about the pope's homophobia can be continued appropriately...

Should the UN be given authorities that will allow it to actually be effective in its dedicated responsibilities?
I'm generally a supporter of the UN, and I'm sure as hall not a willfully ignorant nay-sayer.

But no. Not beyond what it has today. Sure, the organizing of the powers and authority it does have today should be done better, but it should not be given a standing army or anything of the kind, I don't think.

And people tend to underestimate the effectiveness of the UN today, and also expect that the UN has wider responsibilities than it does, so I would hope to see that you expand on your question?

The argument about the UN revolves around the two competing theories of international politics. On one side you have realists, and on the other you have liberals. Realists believe that state security is the SOLE component of international relations, so organizations like the UN don't even contribute to the arena of international politics. Liberals, on the other hand, take into account not only security but also int'l orgs, NGOs, MNCs, and a whole host of other things.

However, the problem with supranational organizations is that they only have as much power as the nations that belong to them allow. And since nations (maybe not citizens in them, but nations as an entity) are realists when it comes to international politics - its the safe bet when you're dealing with other countries - the power those states give to the organizations they belong to is always going to be limited. Its a free rider problem and the same reason that the League of Nations was doomed from the start. There's no reason to contribute to something if contributing doesn't gain you any benefits over those who don't. Organizations on much smaller levels (your high school Key Club, for instance) have the same problem. Everyone wants peace, love, and happiness, but only certain people actually do anything to accomplish such lofty goals. Besides, what do they necessarily gain even if they do abolish poverty?

That said, I think the UN does do good in the world and while it is a weak organization (out of necessity, some might say, but certainly it is inevitably crippled), I don't think getting rid of it is the answer.

Off topic: shout out to my Commonwealth brothers and sisters.

It's not widespread with the US military. Does it happen? Yes, in any group of 1.4 million people you're bound to have a number of sociopaths, no matter how much they're vetted. Such incidents are rare, aggressively investigated and prosecuted. The US military was suitably embarrassed by Abu Ghraib and other incidents and is very keen to not have that sort of thing happen again.

Weeeeeeeee-el... I wouldn't say that. At least, not the "aggressively investigated and prosecuted" part. And you didn't include anything about what punishment they might suffer: Demotion, a letter of reprimande, in extreme and well-publicized matters perhaps jail time...

On one side you have realists, and on the other you have liberals.I read til here. That's when I noticed it wasn't worth my time.

Weeeeeeeee-el... I wouldn't say that. At least, not the "aggressively investigated and prosecuted" part. And you didn't include anything about what punishment they might suffer: Demotion, a letter of reprimande, in extreme and well-publicized matters perhaps jail time......Right. :rolleyes:

On one side you have realists, and on the other you have liberals.

Instant fail.

Weeeeeeeee-el... I wouldn't say that. At least, not the "aggressively investigated and prosecuted" part. And you didn't include anything about what punishment they might suffer: Demotion, a letter of reprimande, in extreme and well-publicized matters perhaps jail time...

I would say that. Any time such a thing is found the perpetrators receive prison time. The US military is extremely strict on abuses in the Iraqi theater at the moment. For example, if you fire a round, it skips down the road and kills someone 2km away, someone you didn't even know was there, you will be charged and convicted with the murder of that person.

Every single month we're required to have briefings on various things like human trafficking and are told exactly what sort of hellfire and brimstone will land on our heads if we were to do such things. If one were caught committing something so serious as child rape they'd spend many, many (like the 90+ year sentences talked about earlier) making big rocks into little rocks at Fort Leavenworth.

Does it happen? Yes, clearly it does. Again, in any collection of 1.4 million people you're definitely going to have a number of sociopaths. However, make no mistake that the US military is extremely aggressive in pursuing such matters. Lots of people on the Internet seem to think the US military has a "wink wink, nod nod" approach to such things, but I can't emphasize enough how strongly the US military (or the Army at least, I can't comment on the other branches) tells it's members that such things will not be tolerated.

I know it's tempting to assume that there are all kinds of abuses being systematically swept under the rug, but such abuses are very much the exception, not the rule. They're extremely rare, and this is coming from someone who has spent the better part of the last 8 years in the US military. Rare as such abuses are, it's even rarer that they are swept under the rug, and if they are covered up they rarely stay covered up for long. Trust me when I say that it would be quite difficult to get away with even smacking a local around, much less raping a child.

I also know it's tempting to assume I'm some sort of jingoistic pro-military sort with his blinders on, but that's not the case as my posting history over the last couple of years shows. I'm quite willing to point out the deficiencies in the US military and condemn the abuses that have occurred, but again, those abuses are very rare exceptions to a military that is remarkably well behaved for being a bunch of people whose job is to kill people.

As for the specifics on what punishments are required for specific crimes in the US military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice

I'd link to the specific Articles but my Internet is extremely slow this evening and doesn't feel like cooperating.

Instant fail.I'm psychic. I can tell he considers himself one of the "realists" without even reading the rest of his post.

I'd link to the specific Articles but my Internet is extremely slow this evening and doesn't feel like cooperating. Article 15 for your Internet. :p

Should the UN be given authorities that will allow it to actually be effective in its dedicated responsibilities?

Personally, I don't get how the UN can represent the good in the world when it has virtually every country as a member. Surely it will inevitably represent the average?

...Right. :rolleyes:

Well, Manadel al-Jamadi was murdered in Abu Ghraib. Look at the punishments that were handed out in connection with his case. It doesn't seem to be the exception to the rule.

Murders and abuse of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to go largely unpunished too.

Or should I mention the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war as an example?

Mind you, I don't think it's an American thing. More of a thing that happens when military personel are let loose.

No, and none of the more powerful nations on Earth would allow it.
Couldn't have said it better.

I would say that. Any time such a thing is found the perpetrators receive prison time. The US military is extremely strict on abuses in the Iraqi theater at the moment. For example, if you fire a round, it skips down the road and kills someone 2km away, someone you didn't even know was there, you will be charged and convicted with the murder of that person.

Every single month we're required to have briefings on various things like human trafficking and are told exactly what sort of hellfire and brimstone will land on our heads if we were to do such things. If one were caught committing something so serious as child rape they'd spend many, many (like the 90+ year sentences talked about earlier) making big rocks into little rocks at Fort Leavenworth.

Does it happen? Yes, clearly it does. Again, in any collection of 1.4 million people you're definitely going to have a number of sociopaths. However, make no mistake that the US military is extremely aggressive in pursuing such matters. Lots of people on the Internet seem to think the US military has a "wink wink, nod nod" approach to such things, but I can't emphasize enough how strongly the US military (or the Army at least, I can't comment on the other branches) tells it's members that such things will not be tolerated.

I know it's tempting to assume that there are all kinds of abuses being systematically swept under the rug, but such abuses are very much the exception, not the rule. They're extremely rare, and this is coming from someone who has spent the better part of the last 8 years in the US military. Rare as such abuses are, it's even rarer that they are swept under the rug, and if they are covered up they rarely stay covered up for long. Trust me when I say that it would be quite difficult to get away with even smacking a local around, much less raping a child.

I also know it's tempting to assume I'm some sort of jingoistic pro-military sort with his blinders on, but that's not the case as my posting history over the last couple of years shows. I'm quite willing to point out the deficiencies in the US military and condemn the abuses that have occurred, but again, those abuses are very rare exceptions to a military that is remarkably well behaved for being a bunch of people whose job is to kill people.

As for the specifics on what punishments are required for specific crimes in the US military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice

I'd link to the specific Articles but my Internet is extremely slow this evening and doesn't feel like cooperating.

I want to believe that what you're saying is true for the US military everywhere, honestly I do. (I believe you are telling the truth from your poin of view, mind, I've got no reson to believe otherwise.) But the information I've seen suggest otherwise, and very clearly so, so I've yet to be convinced.

Well, suffice to say, I hope you're correct. I would be happy to be wrong about this one.

I read til here. That's when I noticed it wasn't worth my time.

I'm not sure why. Care to clarify?

Let me venture a guess - you are thinking in the mindset of the American political system. Common mistake - realists and liberals have no correlation to the Republicans and Democrats. They aren't that kind of liberal. The two might jive at certain times but its not always a given. I'm talking about international relations theory.

I'm psychic. I can tell he considers himself one of the "realists" without even reading the rest of his post.
Perhaps you should take the time to read the rest of it. It isn't very long, and I think you'd find your psychic powers aren't as sharp as you might think. Obviously its difficult to take sides, because nothing is black and white, but I come down a little on one side rather than the other.

Responding to posts you haven't even read can make you look rather foolish. I know everyone here isn't a political science major :P but I tried to boil it down as best I could.

...Right. :rolleyes:

Well, I know of at least one case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable-car_disaster) in which US soldiers killed 20 civilians in peacetime and walked away free, with the US government not even paying the full compensation to the families of the victims...

So if they don't get prosecuted for killing, why should they be for rape or torture?