[QatzelOk]

I think it's time countries like Canada and Australia leave their Imperialist military alliances and spearhead the creation of a UN army which, like NATO, considers an attack on any member (like Iraq or Afghanistan) an attack on all members.

France and Russia would, together, make this coallition the best hope for balancing racist and murderous hegemons like Nazi Germany and Consumer America.

Target: Canada out of NATO and into UN-Army by 2010.

[AmericanPop]

Afghanistan was UN sanctioned

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I'd say it's still difficult to persuade people to put their lives at risk purely for the UN. There's an ethos in most militaries that takes many years to build up, and I think it will take a long period of joint operations in organisations like NATO, the EU, and coalitions under the UN flag before many people will sign up to be a permanent UN soldier. I also think few governments would finance a permanent UN military.

[Citizen J]

Argument 1. Dislike/distrust of the U.N.. A lot of member nations don't like the U.N. for a number of different reasons. Rather than trying to outline all those reasons, I'll just say that this is one reason why many member nations would be uncooperative in the matter.

Argument 2. Nationalism. Many nations don't like the idea of having their troops commanded by anyone other than their own officers. Many nations don't like the idea of their troops being used in anything other than their own governments self interest. And finally, many nations would not want their troops used unless they have total control over their use.

Argument 3. The Wackos have a point. Many people are still looking for the one world government and will see giving the U.N. an army as another step towards that end. They see it as a threat to their own nations sovereignty. Some other see it as ushering in the end times (the anti christ kind of thing). These wackos might have something of a point in that giving the U.N. an army may make it more beligerent towards the national sovereignty of smaller nations.

[QatzelOk]

1.

A lot of member nations don't like the U.N.

And a lot of these nations are the reason the UN needs to have an army.

2.

Nationalism.

The UN army would be there to control antagonistic nationalism when it spills into international territory, as in Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan.

3.

a threat to their own nations sovereignty

Once again, a UN army protects national sovereignty, especially that of small nations that can't possibly protect themselves from the larger fascist nations around them.

[Theodore]

A bad idea, as it would make removing or even threatening reactionary regimes impossible.

[Dan]

I think it's time countries like Canada and Australia leave their Imperialist military alliances and spearhead the creation of a UN army

Hurrah for UN imperialism.

You continously whine about the imperailism of this or that nation and now you want to give an army to the most corrupt organization on the planet so it can fulfill its imperailist ambitions over the entire world. Genius.

like NATO, considers an attack on any member (like Iraq or Afghanistan) an attack on all members.

Hurrah for supporting corrupt dictatorships and theocracies.

France and Russia would, together, make this coallition the best hope for balancing racist and murderous hegemons like Nazi Germany and Consumer America.

Target: Canada out of NATO and into UN-Army by 2010.

Traget: Canada out of the UN by 2010.

[Citizen J]

It's not I that needs to be convinced, I merely laid out three arguments that I've heard in the past. Personally, I think those three reasons are the reason for so much opposition to the idea.

The religious nuts will never agree to any argument you or I could possibly put forth. The nationalists will never accept any organization that does not put their particular country before all others. And of course, the members that don't like the U.N. are already members. They want the U.N. to have less powers, not more. So good luck trying to convince them.

Personally, I'm mostly neutral on the matter. I see where a permanent standing army could be good and bad for the U.N..

[Theimmortal1]

Forced military alliances do not work. End of story.

[QatzelOk]

Why would it be forced?

I'm in favour of Canada voluntarily dropping out of NATO (and taking maybe a few others with it) and helping found a United Nations equivalent.

The only domestic use for our army would then be national disasters. Political suppresion would be impossible as our army would be subservient to a UN constitution that would allow political plurality, even if that plurality threatens the nation state's status quo.

[Dan]

Political suppresion would be impossible as our army would be subservient to a UN constitution that would allow political plurality

Idealism!

[QatzelOk]

Idealism!

Well this is the Liberal forum.

Realists can have all the other forums, especially the Cars one.

[Theimmortal1]

If the Canucks want to be in a military alliance with Iran then they may be predicting their own doom.

[QatzelOk]

If the Canucks want to be in a military alliance with Iran then they may be predicting their own doom.

I wish you'd said something sooner.

[Shannonnn]

[KurtFF8]

Since the UN is made up of almost all countries in the world, the first time there is any military conflict, it would be civil war in a sense automatically.

The world isn't ready for a unified army, because what would it fight?

[Madmax]

Never ever!

1. The UN is legendry for having completely corruptable troops. Just put them in DR congo for a month and see how long a trooper can resist conflict diamonds shoved in his hand.

2. They wouldnt have a decent mandate anyway.

3. They always cock up like in riwanda, shrebranitza and other massacres.

4. Its better for the people to kill each other off rather than be held up for years on end at great expense while we give them aid to help them limp on before victory can be achieved.

5. They wont even go to isreal to solve that conflict so whats the point! Thats the biggest flash point on earth.

[Nattering Nabob]

I think it's time countries like Canada and Australia leave their Imperialist military alliances and spearhead the creation of a UN army

I wish these and other countries would show the leadership necessarry to accomplish goals like this...

[Wedge Antilles]

Not at all. I tend to lean towards non-interventionism, though I'm prepared to support committing troops overseas in a situation like World War II where a totalitarian regime is engaging in flagrant aggression. However, I don't think interventionism ceases to be interventionism if our troops get to wear cuddly-looking powder blue helmets. I'm not saying we should stay out of UN Peacekeeping altogether, but I think we should be very selective about the operations we take part in, and a standing army would probably lead the UN to intervene more often...

If you want us to get out of NATO, I'm not necessarily opposed. I don't have a problem with our original role in NATO, protecting the remaining European democracies against the potential threat of Soviet aggression, as it was purely defensive, our presence was supported by the governments (and probably a majority of the people) of the countries we were agreeing to defend, and whatever the failings of capitalism, Soviet-style authoritarian communism was far worse than liberal democracy, IMVHO. But that rationale is now a thing of the past. However, I think a UN standing army would likely place us in an even more interventionist foreign policy than before. If anything, I'd prefer that we pursue a policy generally of armed neutrality (with the possibility of taking part in some UN Peacekeeping ops, or of coming to the aid of a country directly under attack, if it seems truly justified to do so).

Afghanistan was UN sanctioned

Exactly. And most NATO members (including us) stayed out of the Iraq war.

considers an attack on any member (like Iraq or Afghanistan) an attack on all members

And a lot of these nations are the reason the UN needs to have an army.

The irony of that is that Ba'athist Iraq and Taliban Afghanistan were right at the top of the list of member nations with an inimical relationship towards the UN...

Once again, a UN army protects national sovereignty, especially that of small nations that can't possibly protect themselves from the larger fascist nations around them.

I understand the argument, but I can't help but think creating a standing UN Army under the direct control of the UN, rather than the member states contributing to it, would ultimately erode sovereignty. The intent might be to "protect the sovereignty" of all nations, but the fact of such an army's existence would effectively reduce those member states to protectorates of the UN.

More to the point, there is the risk of "function creep." What if it became not just a defence force but a means of imposing the UN's will on member states? Would you support the invasion of countries that didn't ratify Kyoto?* Or what about those who refused inspection of their WMD sites (where does that sound familiar from)? Should it be used to intervene in civil wars, even if there's no genocide involved? Somehow that sovereignty looks pretty shaky...

I'm not one of those fundamentalist types who starts quoting Revelation at the mention of world government (although I admit I'm philosophically opposed to it for practical reasons), but the way I see it a UN Army would be a step towards global federalism, not a means of safeguarding sovereignty...

*Please don't get me wrong on that example, I'm all for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and I'm not happy with Harper's stance on the issue. It's just that I don't consider it casus belli...

[Findeton]

[quote=QatzelOk]I think it's time countries like Canada and Australia leave their Imperialist military alliances and spearhead the creation of a UN army which, like NATO, considers an attack on any member (like Iraq or Afghanistan) an attack on all members.

France and Russia would, together, make this coallition the best hope for balancing racist and murderous hegemons like Nazi Germany and Consumer America.

Target: Canada out of NATO and into UN-Army by 2010.[/quote]

UN is not a democratic organization when it comes to real life: some countries have the VETO power while most of them don't have it. The VETO power should be abolished and the whole representation and cast of votes scheme should be reformed if you want me to support UN or an UN-army. The VETO thing is just the top of the icerberg: why does the security council have only 15 seats? why are there in the security council only 5 permanent seats and only 10 temporary seats? why the general assembly has the one state-one vote policy, instead of having a number of votes proportional to the population of each country? why are General Assembly resolutions not binding when it's the most democratic organ of the UN? why should dictatorships be able to have any power at all at the UN?

The UN raises too many questions. At this moment, i would fully oppose a UN-Army.

BTW: Hi, i'm new here, and excuse me for my bad english, i'm from Spain.