Should the UN have its own military?

[David Floyd]

Why not? Weren't the Japanese violating the rights of everyone who wanted to trade with them and everyone in Japan who wanted to trade with foreign countries?

No, they certainly weren't. If they wanted to live in a closed society that didn't trade with anyone, that was their prerogative.

Do you also believe it's wrong for police to require people to evacuate an area that's endangered by fire?

As long as the people choose to stay in the endangered area of their own free will, then yes, I'd say it's wrong for the police to force them to leave.

[Q Classic]

I guess the US body count wasn't high enough for you? What's the magic number? 100,000? 1,000,000?

...

when i said half-as$ed job, i mean just that. you guys didn't exterminate the plague of stalinism on the peninsula.

don't put words in my mouth, and don't assume that i want americans to die.

[Q Classic]

and obviously i won't ever be able to change your opinion, nor you mine.

so i'll just end the argument here: we agree to disagree.

[David Floyd]

when i said half-as$ed job, i mean just that. you guys didn't exterminate the plague of stalinism on the peninsula.

don't put words in my mouth, and don't assume that i want americans to die.

Wanting us to "finish the job" but claiming you don't want Americans to die isn't really logical.

so i'll just end the argument here: we agree to disagree.

Well ****, you're no fun

[Q Classic]

Well ****, you're no fun

i suppose not. i'm just not sure how far i can take the argument, though, without getting too personal.

rather than end up with a gian argument style:
"YOU SHUT UP!"
"NO, YOU SHUT UP!"
"YOU SHUT UP! GIVE ME PROOF!"
"NO, YOU SHUT UP! GIVE ME PROOF!"
etc., might as well end here.

[Dom Pedro II]

I think that there needs to be some serious alterations in how the UN takes action. It seems that the bureaucracy really is a major problem with the whole matter.

To give the UN its own military though seems almost dangerous to me. To do so would be taking somewhat of a dangerous step toward federalisng the planet. Not to mention, the UN might also become a means for wealthier countries to fight wars without actually having to spend a dime. Think about it, if the United States can convince the UN to attack a country that the U.S. has beef with, then a Republican president can keep the taxes low by not having to blow a cool ten billion on a war. I mean, we haven't ever paid our dues to the UN anyway, so why not?

[Tingkai]

Why would federalizing the planet be dangerous?

I think that we'll eventually reach a system similar to Canadian confederation with a specific division of jurisdiction. Some things would be under the mandate of the UN (perhaps environment) while the majority of power would be left to individual nations.

As for the US controlling the UN, or for that matter any other country, this is unlikely given all of the conflicting interests. Rich/poor/democratic/undemocratic countries rarely act in unison.

[Dom Pedro II]

I actually do think that a federalized world could potentially be a problem, yes. I don't think that a consolidated central authority is ever a good idea. A loose confederation would work well though, I think.

Anyway, I'm not saying that the U.S. would dominate the UN. I mean, having a UN military will not change that. I'm saying that a country could get a war for free. Rather than using your own military, you would have the UN do it for you.