Amazon.com Widgets
  • To save the human race

    I would like a army that would only stand for the survival of the human race no matter what the cost. If I had to sacrifice 1 million lives to save 1 billion i would do it in a heat beat. No country or religion should stand in the way of what we as a specie worked thousands of years to make.

  • We need one organization with all the power to maintain stability and that organization should be the UN.

    Many people see the idea of a one world government as authoritarian and dystopian but I see a future more like what is portrayed witg UEG in Halo. A humanity at peace (excluding the Insurgency) because one group, the UN has total, unchallenged power and can thus maintain stability and peace because it has the biggest stick. For true, long lasting peace to be established, one group must weild complete military dominance and the group should be the UN.

  • We need one organization with all the power to maintain stability and that organization should be the UN.

    Many people see the idea of a one world government as authoritarian and dystopian but I see a future more like what is portrayed witg UEG in Halo. A humanity at peace (excluding the Insurgency) because one group, the UN has total, unchallenged power and can thus maintain stability and peace because it has the biggest stick. For true, long lasting peace to be established, one group must weild complete military dominance and the group should be the UN.

  • This "UN Military" will be like a World Power within itself with no one country in total control of it

    A. Promote World Peace
    i. UN would have army bases stationed in countries especially troubled countries
    ii. Deploy troops to world problems easier
    iii. Respond faster to world problems with a world army
    b. Collateral for Countries in the UN
    i. Countries would be less likely to act out knowing that they have troops under somebody else control in another country
    ii. Countries wouldn’t attack a country that has their troops stationed to defend that country
    iii. Countries should also receive a bigger vote on world decisions if they do donate troops to the UN army
    c. UN would approach situations better
    i. Be more careful knowing that their troops would be involved instead of being a little more careless
    ii. All countries would participate in world problems instead of just a couple
    iii. UN would become a sort of world police while holding its political position

  • Yes, more for mobilization than anything else

    A UN standing force would help create more stability as full time peacekeepers would be in my opinion more motivated to join if the yearly salary is competitive and if they are full time rather than part time. It could lead to promotions which would in turn lead to more membership and both would help with motivation. My main point however is that a standing army would be more effective as daily trainings would help them become easier to mobilize in a timely sense in turn leading to peace keeping forces being able move out quicker.

  • Yes, more for mobilization than anything else

    A UN standing force would help create more stability as full time peacekeepers would be in my opinion more motivated to join if the yearly salary is competitive and if they are full time rather than part time. It could lead to promotions which would in turn lead to more membership and both would help with motivation. My main point however is that a standing army would be more effective as daily trainings would help them become easier to mobilize in a timely sense in turn leading to peace keeping forces being able move out quicker.

  • Yes, more for mobilization than anything else

    A UN standing force would help create more stability as full time peacekeepers would be in my opinion more motivated to join if the yearly salary is competitive and if they are full time rather than part time. It could lead to promotions which would in turn lead to more membership and both would help with motivation. My main point however is that a standing army would be more effective as daily trainings would help them become easier to mobilize in a timely sense in turn leading to peace keeping forces being able move out quicker.

  • An army of humanity

    A UN Army would provide an independent body capable of undertaking missions in support of UN resolutions, without relying on the goodwill of contributing states. Missions would be viewed as more legitimate if undertaken by forces under a UN banner, rather than a more politicized power like the USA or China. A UN Army would not seek territory, nor control of natural resources, and serve (in the UN tradition) as a force that fights for no nation but for the common good of humanity.

  • Yes Yes Yes

    The UN sanctions the use and intervention of military forces into countries for variant reasons. Though these forces are there at the UN's discretion, they are still armed distinct forces from other countries and viewed as invaders by the civilian populous. Countries that provide troops for UN operations do not deserve negative stigmas. The UN should have a standing army, the individual soldiers should be paid by their mother country, but they should wear a UN uniform and operate under the UN flag. This would absolve specific countries from being viewed as aggressor invaders

  • Yes, the UN needs an army of their own

    Because in situations like the Arab Spring the protestant needed the support of some sort to get rid of the regime quickly and many innocents wouldn't have died, also because there would be diversity in the military so if the military is used against a country the country won't know who to attack since it's a mix of nations.

  • The United Nations should not even be around let alone have standing army undermines other countries sovereignty

    The UN should have no standing army the last thing we need is One World Government the UN should be taken down the World Bank should be revoked and the IMF immediately shutdown do you three Unholy alliances are for a one world government one world religion and will make it impossible overtime to do anything like protest they want control over your money and for them to spend it for you they want control how much you can possibly get and we're headed towards that direction and army for them makes no sense at all unless you want a 1 world tyrannical government death wishes nothing more to further enslave you

  • What about peacekeeping?

    UN should promote diplomacy, not war. UN isn't a nation and doesn't need to protect any territory. By providing more funds for education and developing third world countries could be more effective in improving international peace instead of creating a standing army. A standing army could be more detrimental to international peace and democracy. I want to send a shout out to my mom and dad. PEACE!

  • The U.N. could contribute more to the education and development of third world nation

    By providing more funds for education and developing third world countries could be more effective in improving international peace instead of creating a standing army. A standing army could be more detrimental to international peace and democracy. I want to send a shout out to my mom and dad. PEACE!

  • Allowing the UN to have a standing army would be costly

    If the UN has a standard army, ammunition, guns, aircraft, and other equipment would be needed. If these items must be bought, who will pay for them? Also, food, shelter, and drinking water is also costly and would need to be bought. This would cause lots of conflict over which countries should have to pay more for the military of the UN.

  • The UN is not a nation.

    The UN is not a nation, and there a 5 main nations that have veto power. Having an army would be very difficult because they would have to figure out where to get members. The members would likely already be in the army in the nation they reside. They couldn't serve in two. It would be highly unfair, unneeded as some nations like Costa Rica don't have an army, and the UN isn't a nation.

  • No, the United Nations doesn't have a country!

    It's ridiculous for the United Nations to have a standing army. The U.N. is already so dictatorial in nature that with a standing army there will be no stopping them. Their leftist anti-american treaties that the U.S. is supposed to fund. The U.S. is supposed to fund our own demise. Give me a break. How stupid do you think we are?

  • No, an army should be the responsibility of individual countries.

    The UN is an organization made up of many individual countries. It should be the responsibility of the individual countries to raise and use a standing army. UN troops come from these countries and should be used for defense alone in dangerous situations, not for offensive attacks. For the UN to have a standing army would indicate that the UN is attempting to wield its power and influence over the nations of the world.

  • No, giving the UN an army would be redundant.

    The point of the UN is to promote diplomacy and world peace. The security council, which approves UN peacekeeping mission, makes up the vast majority of military force in the world. If they all agree to volunteer forces for a mission, then there is no need for an additional group lead by the UN at large.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.