Thread: United Nations ‘Army’ Proposed

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 ... shtml?s=ic

By the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:43 a.m. EDT

United Nations ‘Army’ Proposed

Crisis management experts are calling for the creation of a "United Nations army” – an international rapid reaction force that could be deployed within 48 hours to intervene in emergency situations around the globe.

Composed of up to 15,000 military, police and civilian staff, including medics, the proposed force would be recruited from professionals hired by the U.N. from many countries, and based at designated U.N. sites.

Its actions would be authorized by the U.N. Security Council, according to the Toronto Star.

"It's not a new idea, but it has now come into its own," said Peter Langille of University of Western Ontario, one of the major contributors to the book "A United Nations Emergency Peace Service: To Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity,” which will be presented at the U.N. on Friday.


"With countries moving away from U.N. peacekeeping, and troops overstretched in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, (the rapid reaction force) has new appeal."

The idea of a U.N. emergency force was first given serious thought in 1994, in the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide. But at that time, the U.S. was concerned that the force would become an out-of-control "U.N. army," and developing countries felt threatened by what they feared could be an interventionist force directed by the West.
But University of Notre Dame political scientist Robert Johansen, the book's chief writer, says a U.N. force could help prevent horrendous conflict such as the Rwanda genocide and the current crisis in Darfur.

"With an independent force at their disposal, and no obligation to send in their own troops, the Security Council's often squabbling members would have less reason to drag out debates about when to intervene in crises,” the Star reports.

The new emergency force could cost $2 billion to establish, less than the wars that have plagued Africa and Asia in recent years. "A U.N. agency would for the first time in history offer a rapid, comprehensive, internationally legitimate response to crisis, enabling it to save hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars through early and often preventive action," the book states.

But experts say there are serious obstacles to overcome before the rapid reaction force could be created.
"The concept is sound but it would depend on who was willing to join up and ante up," says Canadian Col. Pat Strogan, vice-president of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre.

"If there weren't reluctance on the part of countries to contribute in the past, it might have taken root by now."

To be used on us, if we don't agree with the globalists wish for the illegal invasion to continue? Agenda 21?

I have no doubt. This is not for a rapid response to disasters. This is for military action. If this moves forward how would they recruit? Where would the forces come from?

Our American men have fought and died to keep foreign armies off our soil...I'm damned if they will do this without one helluva fight...

MJ

Oh NO! Now we will start outsourcing to the UN for your military. Might as well President Bush since you and congress has spent so much of "your" money on Iraq and not on securing our borders.