Should the UN have its own military?

[Tingkai]

C0ckney: Why do you think a UN army would be a threat to soverignty?

From my perspective, A UN army wouldn't threaten national soverignty because it is not a military threat to a functioning government. It would be designed instead to step in when there is a massive power vacuum, such as Somalia or Rwanda. Enough weapons to defend itself and to exert control.

[Felch]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, so now it's a case of the strong picking on the weak? Sorta like the schoolyard bully who takes your lunch money because he can?

We (meaning the US) shouldn't have been in Korea to begin with. It was none of our damn business, and 38,000 Americans paid the ultimate price for our meddling.

Koreans are people, and as people they have certain inalienable rights. As free people, we ought to do what we can to expand freedom and defeat tyranny. North Korea sought to crush the (limited) freedoms of the South, and we fought to prevent that, and to liberate the North if at all possible.

Besides, Korea passes the ban on initiation of coercion test. North Korea invaded the South, and since they initiated the coercive act, they needed to be beaten to prevent them from profiting from their crime.

Libertarian doesn't mean selfish. It means valuing liberty, and opposing tyranny. By your standards Lafeyette was a warmonger who had no business involving himself in the internal affairs of the British Empire.

America is the schoolyard bully when we initiate coercion. When we respond to force or fraud with the same, we are simply serving our fellow lovers of freedom and liberty by defending those who can't defend themselves.

And don't give me any crap about how despotic South Korea was. That's not the issue. The issue is that a worse evil was trying to absorb them and oppress them even further. Besides, the limited freedoms of the RoK have developed into a democratic republic, while the North is still being ruled by a wanna-be Stalin.

[Felch]

In terms of the original question, I think that a mercenary force paid to fight in these situations is appropriate. There's nothing so sacred about nations that they alone deserve to command armies; they appear and disappear throughout history. What are sacred are the rights that all people ought to enjoy, and they should be defended tenaciously by any means necessary.

[David Floyd]

Libertarian doesn't mean selfish. It means valuing liberty, and opposing tyranny.

Tyranny? You mean sorta like conscription? Sorta like forcing young Americans to go fight 6000 miles away in a land they don't care about in order to make a political statement for the US government? Don't talk to me about tyranny - an example of people fighting a war in a non-coercive fashion would be something like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. The US government didn't declare war and force anyone to die, but thousands of Americans volunteered to go fight for what they thought was right.

More later, I'm late for work.

[Q Classic]

Oh, so now it's a case of the strong picking on the weak? Sorta like the schoolyard bully who takes your lunch money because he can?

no, not quite. we could have done it to stop the chinese advance and won korea completely for democracy.

We (meaning the US) shouldn't have been in Korea to begin with. It was none of our damn business, and 38,000 Americans paid the ultimate price for our meddling.

and if you hadn't been there, over 60 million koreans would be suffering, and maybe a half to two thirds of those would be starving.
over two three million probably would have paid the ultimate price already.
i say again, df:

maybe you're fine with the idea that if all of korea became stalinist under kim il sung, but i'm not.

without macarthur, all of korea would be a starving hellhole, part of bush's stupid "axis of evil". without him, all of korea would be bankrupt, its economy frozen. without him, i'd be stuck in a third-rate pos country.

So? That doesn't justify forcing hundreds of thousands of Americans to go to Korea against their will - ie the draft - and being directly responsible for the deaths of 38,000 of them.
I'm sorry people would have died if we weren't there. But you know what? Life's a *****, it tends to be unpleasant.

i take it you're quite the isolationist?
right, maybe we had no business in korea. we also, then, didn't really have any business in ww1, in iraq, in vietnam, in bosnia, in somalia, in panama, in haiti...
then again, you probably do think that, don't you?

yes, by modern standards, the draft was wrong. yes, it probably wasn't a good idea in the first place. but to apply modern morality, modern beliefs, and modern standards to something that happened in the past opens up a pandora's box of what could have and what should have been.

on the whole, i prefer to think of the american sacrifice as honorable and heroic. 38 thousand deaths helped prevent the despotic mental, social, and physical murder of 44 million under a stalinist state.

[Bosh]

Blech, MacArthur had a hell of a lot more than "flaws," he unleashed tanks on unarmed american vetrans.

[KrazyHorse]

Yup. I hadn't bothered to mention the glorious action he fought against those nogoodniks who dared to be unemployed during the Great Depression...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Felch X
In terms of the original question, I think that a mercenary force paid to fight in these situations is appropriate. There's nothing so sacred about nations that they alone deserve to command armies; they appear and disappear throughout history. What are sacred are the rights that all people ought to enjoy, and they should be defended tenaciously by any means necessary.

God bless me, I agree with you wholeheartedly, except for mercenary bit; while it may technically be true that a UN command implies that the forces either be mercenary or auxiliary (since the UN has no citizens from whom to recruit) I would hope that those it drew would be fighting for the cause rather than the money.

[leftover_crack]

Well depends macaruther was an ass to some (his own soldiers) and a hero to others...(The Japanese people)

A Fascist to some (hollywood) a great general to others (washington)

[Felch]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Tyranny? You mean sorta like conscription? Sorta like forcing young Americans to go fight 6000 miles away in a land they don't care about in order to make a political statement for the US government? Don't talk to me about tyranny - an example of people fighting a war in a non-coercive fashion would be something like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. The US government didn't declare war and force anyone to die, but thousands of Americans volunteered to go fight for what they thought was right.

More later, I'm late for work.

Oh wow, I'm sorry. I must have accidentally typed conscription when I meant . . . wait no. I never said anything about the draft. I simply said that we were fighing for a good cause.

Thanks for changing the subject though.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Frogger
God bless me, I agree with you wholeheartedly, except for mercenary bit; while it may technically be true that a UN command implies that the forces either be mercenary or auxiliary (since the UN has no citizens from whom to recruit) I would hope that those it drew would be fighting for the cause rather than the money.

I'd prefer mercenaries simply because it would generally increase the professionalism of the force. The current method seems to encourage countries with ill-disciplines forces to contribute. An ideal force would be closer the FFL, than the Cameroonian Army.

[KrazyHorse]

I was totally agreeing with the point that the current system (auxiliaries) needs to go...but calling the resulting hired-direct-by-UN force "mercenary" (while it may be technically true) would hopefully not accurately represent the motivation driving people to enlist.

[David Floyd]

Q,

no, not quite. we could have done it to stop the chinese advance and won korea completely for democracy.

Korea? Democracy? Really now. If it's anything like the democracy South Korea had, that's certainly nothing to fight for.

and if you hadn't been there, over 60 million koreans would be suffering, and maybe a half to two thirds of those would be starving.
over two three million probably would have paid the ultimate price already.

Maybe so. But it is NEVER America's place to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation. That's all the Korean War was, really - a civil war, after we set up an arbitrary division of a country that didn't want to be divided.
Further, I'm sure that reasoning makes the families of those 38,000 killed feel a whole lot better, huh? "Gee, my two sons died 6000 miles away from multiple gut wounds, but it's all OK because at least Korea is (semi) free." Right?

right, maybe we had no business in korea. we also, then, didn't really have any business in ww1, in iraq, in vietnam, in bosnia, in somalia, in panama, in haiti...

You're certainly correct, and you can add the CSA, Cuba, Nicaragua, WW2, Kuwait, Grenada, and Kosovo in there as well, and that'll do until I think of more.

yes, by modern standards, the draft was wrong. yes, it probably wasn't a good idea in the first place. but to apply modern morality, modern beliefs, and modern standards to something that happened in the past opens up a pandora's box of what could have and what should have been.

Isn't that entirely the point? And besides, if you believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs, as I do, then applying "modern morality" to the past isn't a problem in this case, because conscription was just as wrong then as it is now.

38 thousand deaths helped prevent the despotic mental, social, and physical murder of 44 million under a stalinist state.

Isn't that nice. I wouldn't have a problem with it, if every American who fought in Korea was a volunteer and the US was not officially in the fight, along the lines of the Spanish Civil War, for example. That way people at home wouldn't have to support killing through taxes, either.

[Felch]

Frogger:

Yeah, I figured that. I offered up the Foreign Legion as an example of an ideal for that reason. I doubt many people join it for the money, but it would be dishonest to call it anything but a mercenary force.

I'm guessing a lot of mercenaries fight for money and the excitement and experiences. I wouldn't know though, I'm not too intrigued by the whole idea of being shot at.

[GeneralTacticus]

Maybe so. But it is NEVER America's place to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation. That's all the Korean War was, really - a civil war, after we set up an arbitrary division of a country that didn't want to be divided.

Would you have supported someone else intervening in the US if another country invaded and set up Texas as their own puppet state? That is exactly what the Soviets did in North Korea.

Isn't that entirely the point? And besides, if you believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs, as I do, then applying "modern morality" to the past isn't a problem in this case, because conscription was just as wrong then as it is now.

What if you don't believe in absolute rights and wrongs? Why do you?

Further, I'm sure that reasoning makes the families of those 38,000 killed feel a whole lot better, huh? "Gee, my two sons died 6000 miles away from multiple gut wounds, but it's all OK because at least Korea is (semi) free." Right?

Hey, if we used your reasoning, I'm sure the Korean people would feel a whole lot better about being under a Stlainist government - "Hey, my brother just got shot for complaining about the price of bread,and I can't afford to buy food, and I'm not allowed to say anything about it, but that's all right, because it meant 38 000 Americans could stay home and the US could save a few billion dollars."