To those bashing the UN forces

[Jassi]

Read this

I'd like to see how you guys respond now.

 

[CanOWorms]

Seems like they did clean up - it says he was court martialed and sentenced to jail for 25 years. Most people have criticism of the UN forces because they get away free.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Jassi
Read this

I'd like to see how you guys respond now.

From the article, we are cleaning our own house. That douche just got sentenced to 25 years, which will probably all be served in Leavenworth.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Seems like they did clean up - it says he was court martialed and sentenced to jail for 25 years. Most people have criticism of the UN forces because they get away free.

Eh, yeah, they did what they were supposed to do, which is the point, if that had been a UN soldier he would still have to be dealt with by his own nation.

UN can't do shiat when it comes to soldiers operating under the UN flag, that is one of the great things that US has enforced in the UN.

SO shut up about it or blame the individual countries instead.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Seems like they did clean up - it says he was court martialed and sentenced to jail for 25 years. Most people have criticism of the UN forces because they get away free.

Eh, yeah, they did what they were supposed to do, which is the point, if that had been a UN soldier he would still have to be dealt with by his own nation.

UN can't do shiat when it comes to soldiers operating under the UN flag, that is one of the great things that US has enforced in the UN.

SO shut up about it or blame the individual countries instead.

Please show proof of that.

 

[f95toli]

Proof of what? That the individual countries are responsible even if the soldiers are operating under UN flag?
That is just the way it works (I think it has always been that way). UN troops are almost never "mixed", in peace keeping missions the region is usually divided into zones, one (or maybe two) countries are then responsible for each zone. This means that the individual soldier is the responsibily of his/her country.
I am not sure how things work when troops from different countires co-operate in actual combat (which happens from time to time) but as far as I know the same rules apply.

At least Swedish soldiers operate under swedish law even when they are on UN missions, occasionally someone will break the law and then he/she will be sent home and prosecuted. There is no "UN military police" or anything like that, everything is handled by Swedish MPs.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: f95toli
Proof of what? That the individual countries are responsible even if the soldiers are operating under UN flag?
That is just the way it works (I think it has always been that way). UN troops are almost never "mixed", in peace keeping missions the region is usually divided into zones, one (or maybe two) countries are then responsible for each zone. This means that the individual soldier is the responsibily of his/her country.
I am not sure how things work when troops from different countires co-operate in actual combat (which happens from time to time) but as far as I know the same rules apply.

At least Swedish soldiers operate under swedish law even when they are on UN missions, occasionally someone will break the law and then he/she will be sent home and prosecuted. There is no "UN military police" or anything like that, everything is handled by Swedish MPs.

I know that it is possible, as the US never operates under UN flag when doing UN operations. THe question is that because the US made it that way? or something that UN decided on?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: f95toli
Proof of what? That the individual countries are responsible even if the soldiers are operating under UN flag?
That is just the way it works (I think it has always been that way). UN troops are almost never "mixed", in peace keeping missions the region is usually divided into zones, one (or maybe two) countries are then responsible for each zone. This means that the individual soldier is the responsibily of his/her country.
I am not sure how things work when troops from different countires co-operate in actual combat (which happens from time to time) but as far as I know the same rules apply.

At least Swedish soldiers operate under swedish law even when they are on UN missions, occasionally someone will break the law and then he/she will be sent home and prosecuted. There is no "UN military police" or anything like that, everything is handled by Swedish MPs.

I know that it is possible, as the US never operates under UN flag when doing UN operations. THe question is that because the US made it that way? or something that UN decided on?

It's because the US made it that way, the US does not want it's soldiers answering to international law. (the defiance of the ICC is related to this issue)

The suggestion was that all military interventions should be under a UN flag and every soldier should answer to international law, the US's fefusal to recognize an international court made it impossible to push it through so now every sodier, even under the UN flag, can only be charged in his own country.

If you are really interested in the subject you should head on over to UN's website, i am sure the information is available there.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: f95toli
Proof of what? That the individual countries are responsible even if the soldiers are operating under UN flag?
That is just the way it works (I think it has always been that way). UN troops are almost never "mixed", in peace keeping missions the region is usually divided into zones, one (or maybe two) countries are then responsible for each zone. This means that the individual soldier is the responsibily of his/her country.
I am not sure how things work when troops from different countires co-operate in actual combat (which happens from time to time) but as far as I know the same rules apply.

At least Swedish soldiers operate under swedish law even when they are on UN missions, occasionally someone will break the law and then he/she will be sent home and prosecuted. There is no "UN military police" or anything like that, everything is handled by Swedish MPs.

I know that it is possible, as the US never operates under UN flag when doing UN operations. THe question is that because the US made it that way? or something that UN decided on?

It's because the US made it that way, the US does not want it's soldiers answering to international law. (the defiance of the ICC is related to this issue)

The suggestion was that all military interventions should be under a UN flag and every soldier should answer to international law, the US's fefusal to recognize an international court made it impossible to push it through so now every sodier, even under the UN flag, can only be charged in his own country.

If you are really interested in the subject you should head on over to UN's website, i am sure the information is available there.

So once again, who and when was such a suggestion made.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: f95toli
Proof of what? That the individual countries are responsible even if the soldiers are operating under UN flag?
That is just the way it works (I think it has always been that way). UN troops are almost never "mixed", in peace keeping missions the region is usually divided into zones, one (or maybe two) countries are then responsible for each zone. This means that the individual soldier is the responsibily of his/her country.
I am not sure how things work when troops from different countires co-operate in actual combat (which happens from time to time) but as far as I know the same rules apply.

At least Swedish soldiers operate under swedish law even when they are on UN missions, occasionally someone will break the law and then he/she will be sent home and prosecuted. There is no "UN military police" or anything like that, everything is handled by Swedish MPs.

I know that it is possible, as the US never operates under UN flag when doing UN operations. THe question is that because the US made it that way? or something that UN decided on?

It's because the US made it that way, the US does not want it's soldiers answering to international law. (the defiance of the ICC is related to this issue)

The suggestion was that all military interventions should be under a UN flag and every soldier should answer to international law, the US's fefusal to recognize an international court made it impossible to push it through so now every sodier, even under the UN flag, can only be charged in his own country.

If you are really interested in the subject you should head on over to UN's website, i am sure the information is available there.

So once again, who and when was such a suggestion made.

geat comeback ---- NOT

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: f95toli
Proof of what? That the individual countries are responsible even if the soldiers are operating under UN flag?
That is just the way it works (I think it has always been that way). UN troops are almost never "mixed", in peace keeping missions the region is usually divided into zones, one (or maybe two) countries are then responsible for each zone. This means that the individual soldier is the responsibily of his/her country.
I am not sure how things work when troops from different countires co-operate in actual combat (which happens from time to time) but as far as I know the same rules apply.

At least Swedish soldiers operate under swedish law even when they are on UN missions, occasionally someone will break the law and then he/she will be sent home and prosecuted. There is no "UN military police" or anything like that, everything is handled by Swedish MPs.

I know that it is possible, as the US never operates under UN flag when doing UN operations. THe question is that because the US made it that way? or something that UN decided on?

It's because the US made it that way, the US does not want it's soldiers answering to international law. (the defiance of the ICC is related to this issue)

The suggestion was that all military interventions should be under a UN flag and every soldier should answer to international law, the US's fefusal to recognize an international court made it impossible to push it through so now every sodier, even under the UN flag, can only be charged in his own country.

If you are really interested in the subject you should head on over to UN's website, i am sure the information is available there.

So once again, who and when was such a suggestion made.

geat comeback ---- NOT

I am asking the question....

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Jassi
Read this

I'd like to see how you guys respond now.

I don't bash them for the Africa thing. I bash them for the Oil-for-Food scandal. The U.N. should just be shut down and we should start a new organization that actually DOES SOMETHING. The U.N. is the most pathetic organization I've ever seen.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Jassi
Read this

I'd like to see how you guys respond now.

I don't bash them for the Africa thing. I bash them for the Oil-for-Food scandal. The U.N. should just be shut down and we should start a new organization that actually DOES SOMETHING. The U.N. is the most pathetic organization I've ever seen.

it's pathetic because of its pathetic member states

the UN is as stong as its weakest link and let's say that the dominant powers used the UN as a playing ground
for their political games

aim your bullets at the member states, not the institution

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: f95toli
Proof of what? That the individual countries are responsible even if the soldiers are operating under UN flag?
That is just the way it works (I think it has always been that way). UN troops are almost never "mixed", in peace keeping missions the region is usually divided into zones, one (or maybe two) countries are then responsible for each zone. This means that the individual soldier is the responsibily of his/her country.
I am not sure how things work when troops from different countires co-operate in actual combat (which happens from time to time) but as far as I know the same rules apply.

At least Swedish soldiers operate under swedish law even when they are on UN missions, occasionally someone will break the law and then he/she will be sent home and prosecuted. There is no "UN military police" or anything like that, everything is handled by Swedish MPs.

I know that it is possible, as the US never operates under UN flag when doing UN operations. THe question is that because the US made it that way? or something that UN decided on?

It's because the US made it that way, the US does not want it's soldiers answering to international law. (the defiance of the ICC is related to this issue)

The suggestion was that all military interventions should be under a UN flag and every soldier should answer to international law, the US's fefusal to recognize an international court made it impossible to push it through so now every sodier, even under the UN flag, can only be charged in his own country.

If you are really interested in the subject you should head on over to UN's website, i am sure the information is available there.

Yeah, and I don't want US soldiers operating under a UN flag either. Why should we go under a UN flag? The US military effectively deals with it's internal problems (see that article or the Abu Graib prison thing), so why do we need the ICC doing it? I frankly don't trust other countries and the ICC, and I don't think we should have to submit our troops to their rules when it's our military doing a FAVOR for the UN.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: f95toli
Proof of what? That the individual countries are responsible even if the soldiers are operating under UN flag?
That is just the way it works (I think it has always been that way). UN troops are almost never "mixed", in peace keeping missions the region is usually divided into zones, one (or maybe two) countries are then responsible for each zone. This means that the individual soldier is the responsibily of his/her country.
I am not sure how things work when troops from different countires co-operate in actual combat (which happens from time to time) but as far as I know the same rules apply.

At least Swedish soldiers operate under swedish law even when they are on UN missions, occasionally someone will break the law and then he/she will be sent home and prosecuted. There is no "UN military police" or anything like that, everything is handled by Swedish MPs.

I know that it is possible, as the US never operates under UN flag when doing UN operations. THe question is that because the US made it that way? or something that UN decided on?

It's because the US made it that way, the US does not want it's soldiers answering to international law. (the defiance of the ICC is related to this issue)

The suggestion was that all military interventions should be under a UN flag and every soldier should answer to international law, the US's fefusal to recognize an international court made it impossible to push it through so now every sodier, even under the UN flag, can only be charged in his own country.

If you are really interested in the subject you should head on over to UN's website, i am sure the information is available there.

Yeah, and I don't want US soldiers operating under a UN flag either. Why should we go under a UN flag? The US military effectively deals with it's internal problems (see that article or the Abu Graib prison thing), so why do we need the ICC doing it? I frankly don't trust other countries and the ICC, and I don't think we should have to submit our troops to their rules when it's our military doing a FAVOR for the UN.

you want a strong and effective UN but at the same time you don't want the UN to have any authority

what an intelligent logic!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: f95toli
Proof of what? That the individual countries are responsible even if the soldiers are operating under UN flag?
That is just the way it works (I think it has always been that way). UN troops are almost never "mixed", in peace keeping missions the region is usually divided into zones, one (or maybe two) countries are then responsible for each zone. This means that the individual soldier is the responsibily of his/her country.
I am not sure how things work when troops from different countires co-operate in actual combat (which happens from time to time) but as far as I know the same rules apply.

At least Swedish soldiers operate under swedish law even when they are on UN missions, occasionally someone will break the law and then he/she will be sent home and prosecuted. There is no "UN military police" or anything like that, everything is handled by Swedish MPs.

I know that it is possible, as the US never operates under UN flag when doing UN operations. THe question is that because the US made it that way? or something that UN decided on?

It's because the US made it that way, the US does not want it's soldiers answering to international law. (the defiance of the ICC is related to this issue)

The suggestion was that all military interventions should be under a UN flag and every soldier should answer to international law, the US's fefusal to recognize an international court made it impossible to push it through so now every sodier, even under the UN flag, can only be charged in his own country.

If you are really interested in the subject you should head on over to UN's website, i am sure the information is available there.

Yeah, and I don't want US soldiers operating under a UN flag either. Why should we go under a UN flag? The US military effectively deals with it's internal problems (see that article or the Abu Graib prison thing), so why do we need the ICC doing it? I frankly don't trust other countries and the ICC, and I don't think we should have to submit our troops to their rules when it's our military doing a FAVOR for the UN.

you want a strong and effective UN but at the same time you don't want the UN to have any authority

what an intelligent logic!!!!!!!!!!

I want either no UN or a new, strong organization. The UN is done as an organization, forever. I don't think Americans will ever trust that organization again, and frankly, I don't think the UN will carry half the weight it did before without our unbridled support. We are always the ones left to enforcing their resolutions. Either get rid of it or get a new one that can get something done.

BTW, where in my post does it say anything about a strong and effective UN or no UN authority in that post....?

 

[freegeeks]

The U.N. should just be shut down and we should start a new organization that actually DOES SOMETHING. The U.N. is the most pathetic organization I've ever seen.

so you want an organization that does something but at the same time the policies are set by the member states and the UN itself can't do anything about it???

are you living in lalaland???

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

The U.N. should just be shut down and we should start a new organization that actually DOES SOMETHING. The U.N. is the most pathetic organization I've ever seen.

so you want an organization that does something but at the same time the policies are set by the member states and the UN itself can't do anything about it???

are you living in lalaland???

Maybe if we got rid of veto power of the security council and made it like an 80% majority to take action, then it'd be better. I hate all this unanimous crap, you can't get that many different countries to agree. Oh, and strip the permanent members of their veto power. I don't know, but the way it is now, the UN is worthless. They can't even fix the Sudan crisis, it's pathetic.

 

[f95toli]

I agree with much of what you are saying, the problem is that this is not going to happen. None of the members in the security councel are prepared to give up their right to veto decisions.

The problem is not the UN, the problem is the member nations. You can create as many international organizations as you want but they will all have the same problem, and since there is only one world we need the UN.
The UN is far from perfect, but what are the alternatives? To create hundreds of smaller organizations, each one only dealing with one question? To stop talking to other countries?

Imagine having to summit a meeting with hundreds of nations every time we need to discuss issues which affect the whole world, it is much better to have a something like the UN.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: freegeeks

The U.N. should just be shut down and we should start a new organization that actually DOES SOMETHING. The U.N. is the most pathetic organization I've ever seen.

so you want an organization that does something but at the same time the policies are set by the member states and the UN itself can't do anything about it???

are you living in lalaland???

Maybe if we got rid of veto power of the security council and made it like an 80% majority to take action, then it'd be better. I hate all this unanimous crap, you can't get that many different countries to agree. Oh, and strip the permanent members of their veto power. I don't know, but the way it is now, the UN is worthless. They can't even fix the Sudan crisis, it's pathetic.

I agree with you

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

The U.N. should just be shut down and we should start a new organization that actually DOES SOMETHING. The U.N. is the most pathetic organization I've ever seen.

so you want an organization that does something but at the same time the policies are set by the member states and the UN itself can't do anything about it???

are you living in lalaland???

Agreed.
It has been a consisten policy of the US to maintain it's independence from the UN, and reduce the UN's ability to function effectively.

The US opposed action in Rwanda.
The US opposes the ICC.
The US opposes a central UN millitary command, or a standing order of UN soldiers.

And then Americans complain that the UN is ineffective.

I say pick one: either go it entirely alone, or help bolster internatinonal institutions. You can't have both.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: freegeeks

The U.N. should just be shut down and we should start a new organization that actually DOES SOMETHING. The U.N. is the most pathetic organization I've ever seen.

so you want an organization that does something but at the same time the policies are set by the member states and the UN itself can't do anything about it???

are you living in lalaland???

Maybe if we got rid of veto power of the security council and made it like an 80% majority to take action, then it'd be better. I hate all this unanimous crap, you can't get that many different countries to agree. Oh, and strip the permanent members of their veto power. I don't know, but the way it is now, the UN is worthless. They can't even fix the Sudan crisis, it's pathetic.

The UN is FAR more than you think, go to UN's website and read up on it, the military interventions is an EXTREMELY small part.

Saying that the UN is worthless is fashionable but most who say it have no idea what they are talking about, don't be an idiot, educate yourself.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: freegeeks

The U.N. should just be shut down and we should start a new organization that actually DOES SOMETHING. The U.N. is the most pathetic organization I've ever seen.

so you want an organization that does something but at the same time the policies are set by the member states and the UN itself can't do anything about it???

are you living in lalaland???

Agreed.
It has been a consisten policy of the US to maintain it's independence from the UN, and reduce the UN's ability to function effectively.

The US opposed action in Rwanda.
The US opposes the ICC.
The US opposes a central UN millitary command, or a standing order of UN soldiers.

And then Americans complain that the UN is ineffective.

I say pick one: either go it entirely alone, or help bolster internatinonal institutions. You can't have both.

Nail head, meet hammer!

I love how the veto comes into the question too, can anyone please inform me which country has used it's veto powers the most and how far the distance is to the second in line?

 

[Taejin]

Your logic is inherently flawed. Just because you do something wrong, does not mean you should ignore what other people are doing wrong as well. You may be a hypocrite, but at least people are not being silent about problems.

 

[CubicZirconia]

I don't think Americans will ever trust that organization again, and frankly, I don't think the UN will carry half the weight it did before without our unbridled support. We are always the ones left to enforcing their resolutions.

That's a myth.

"As of June 30, 2001, there were 797 US personnel (1 troop, 756 civilian police, and 40 observers) in worldwide UN peace operations, accounting for 1.8% of total UN peacekeepers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...eacekeeping_operations