International Army?
It would appear that Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post is calling for the UN to possess an army of it's own. His concluding paragraph would so indicate:
Real border security is going to require the kind of force that didn't exist as World War I loomed. With the Lebanese army no match for Hezbollah, a genuine international army such as that proposed by Kofi Annan and Tony Blair (and bigger and more assertive than the Boy Scout troops that the United Nations periodically deploys) is needed to restore the peace. It offers no decisive outcome to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but no decisive outcome is remotely in the offing. In a region rapidly succumbing to blood-drenched fantasies of victory or of martyrdom, however, an international holding action may be the only thing to spare us from another 1914.
The rest of the article gives a history lesson on the First World War, but this last paragraph is the one that bothers me. Quite frankly, the last thing I want to see is a heavily armed UN. That is a recipe for disaster for the whole world right now. I have been an advocate of using NATO (even if that means changing the charter a bit) rather than trusting the UN.
Sorry, Mr. Meyerson, I do not want a world government backed by it's own army. I'm funny that way.
By crosspatch, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 11:08 pm
Particularly an unelected world government that can’t be kicked out of office when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar or using that army for their own kleptocratic purposes. The UN is corrupt. The LAST thing they need is a standing army.
By The Random Yak, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 11:11 pm
Nice. A UN Army? What would that consist of - fifteen medics and 150,000 white flag carriers??
By Roland Hesz, Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 12:51 am
We have one.
Called US. World Police, or whatever he used to call himself
By Gaius, Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 5:40 am
Just think how much more corrupt they’d be if they had an army. The mind boggles.
By Roland Hesz, Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 5:54 am
I don’t think they could become more corrupt
You think the US - or any country - would be less corrupt without an army?
By Dan Collins, Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 6:10 am
Sure. They could all speak Esperanto.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 6:14 am
I agree - I don’t see how they could become MORE corrupt - they are already all the way over.
By Dan, Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 11:26 am
Wait…Mr. Flip Floppy…Would they or wouldn’t they become more corrupt? Would you like some nice flip flops for your flip floppy self?
By Gaius, Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 3:40 pm
One thing you can count on. A complete and utter lack of a sense of humor on the left.
By Roland Hesz, Thursday, 20 July , 2006 @ 6:13 am
Dunno.. In your opinion, I am on the left. Yet I have a sense of humor.
Maybe it’s not a political quality, but a human one?