world government is not even feasible the way things are going
And a space command too.
Absolutely not.
Fuck you and the UN and the EU
Quote from: SecondClass on May 17, 2015, 11:07:45 PMAbsolutely not.Quote from: Korra Valentine on May 17, 2015, 10:09:45 PMAnd a space command too.UN eh?eh?
Quote from: TBlocks on May 17, 2015, 11:09:54 PMQuote from: SecondClass on May 17, 2015, 11:07:45 PMAbsolutely not.Quote from: Korra Valentine on May 17, 2015, 10:09:45 PMAnd a space command too.UN eh?eh?YES
I swear they already do as a "peacekeeping force", though IIRC they weren't very good during the clashes in Eastern Europe in the 90's (Under-equipped Swedish UN peacekeepers had to stand-by and watch as Serbs wiped a town off the map with MBT's), and I think are stationed now in Israel/Gaza and some areas of the African continent (and we can tell how well they're going with the odd smashing of Gaza and the kidnap of girls via Boko Haram and the near collapse of Somalia under Al-Shebab, and the crisis in Sudan/Darfur, and the list goes on).I think that's what NATO is for. They do nothing else but wait for the oncoming Neo-soviet surge.SpoilerOr the US Army seeing as they just looove to go in an interfere with other people's shit until more recently.
Quote from: SuperIrish on May 18, 2015, 11:32:46 AMI swear they already do as a "peacekeeping force", though IIRC they weren't very good during the clashes in Eastern Europe in the 90's (Under-equipped Swedish UN peacekeepers had to stand-by and watch as Serbs wiped a town off the map with MBT's), and I think are stationed now in Israel/Gaza and some areas of the African continent (and we can tell how well they're going with the odd smashing of Gaza and the kidnap of girls via Boko Haram and the near collapse of Somalia under Al-Shebab, and the crisis in Sudan/Darfur, and the list goes on).I think that's what NATO is for. They do nothing else but wait for the oncoming Neo-soviet surge.SpoilerOr the US Army seeing as they just looove to go in an interfere with other people's shit until more recently.Yeah, the UN Peacekeeping force also acquired a great reputation from that M23 insurgency in Congo at the end of 2012 when the Rebels were walking all around Goma (major city they captured at the time), and all the UN peacekeepers did was just stand there and watch. To their defense though, their mandate was solely to protect civilians, so I think it was a little bit unfair to them as shooting at the rebels would have caused massive amounts of collateral damage.
Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 18, 2015, 07:38:37 PMQuote from: SuperIrish on May 18, 2015, 11:32:46 AMI swear they already do as a "peacekeeping force", though IIRC they weren't very good during the clashes in Eastern Europe in the 90's (Under-equipped Swedish UN peacekeepers had to stand-by and watch as Serbs wiped a town off the map with MBT's), and I think are stationed now in Israel/Gaza and some areas of the African continent (and we can tell how well they're going with the odd smashing of Gaza and the kidnap of girls via Boko Haram and the near collapse of Somalia under Al-Shebab, and the crisis in Sudan/Darfur, and the list goes on).I think that's what NATO is for. They do nothing else but wait for the oncoming Neo-soviet surge.SpoilerOr the US Army seeing as they just looove to go in an interfere with other people's shit until more recently.Yeah, the UN Peacekeeping force also acquired a great reputation from that M23 insurgency in Congo at the end of 2012 when the Rebels were walking all around Goma (major city they captured at the time), and all the UN peacekeepers did was just stand there and watch. To their defense though, their mandate was solely to protect civilians, so I think it was a little bit unfair to them as shooting at the rebels would have caused massive amounts of collateral damage.Of course, I believe that the UN's military arm is in the right mind with trying to maintain peace, but it they seem to get the shorthand every time and then generally fail in the objective.It's rather disheartening, really.
All of this boils down to the fact that the big deadlock in the UN is the existence of the single-nation veto in the UNSC. Countless UN decisions have been fucked over due to either Russia/USSR or the US vetoing various resolutions.
Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 18, 2015, 08:06:19 PMAll of this boils down to the fact that the big deadlock in the UN is the existence of the single-nation veto in the UNSC. Countless UN decisions have been fucked over due to either Russia/USSR or the US vetoing various resolutions.It shouldn't work like that, it's totally disproportionate. Just because a UN decision might affect a super-power's economic interests or their sphere of influence, it shouldn't allow them to steamroll a majority vote to maintain control of the world.One-nation veto's are bulshit, but weighted votes aren't as much (though they should be balanced out, i.e. two opposing super powers cancel out, and then it falls to the "minority" countries.)
Should the UN have an army?
