US drone have murdered 1000's

[Bigthumb]

I don't have a masters degree in peace keeping conflictology or know the doctrine of US strategy but I do know some of the basic principles of peace keeping which are common sense to most but increasingly alien concepts to those on the ground as they get sucked into channels of irrationality regarding their role and that of others http://pbpu.unlb.org/pbps/library/capstone_doctrine_eng.pdf

You would need alot of experience to interpret what you've seen and not get hoodwinked

 

In the Islamic State you don't need any qualifications to be an observer or a bringer of humanitarian aid to these folks. You just need a head attatched to your shoulders that they can remove because you don't share their jaded religious views. So get yourself off over there. You are fully qualified to send us reports about US missiles going astray.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Bigthumb

[Harleyman]

In an ideal world the UN would deal with this sort of problem. Threats to international security should be dealt with on an international basis.

 

A combined military force containing a percentage of contribution commensurate with each members size and wealth should be assigned the task of sorting it out with an agreed definition of what would constitute success.

Problem being that the UN is a toothless tiger and the blame for that lies with the five permanent members veto.

 

Any one of China, France, Russia, UK or USA can veto any resolution.

 

As just about any international situation which you can name will interfere with the 'interests' of one or more of that group bugger all tends to get done.

 

The veto should be removed, it should be agreed that if a majority of 65% of those countries voting ( sod them that abstain, no balls no glory ) agree upon a course of action then that is what should happen.

 

If IS new the world was coming to kick their arse it might give pause for thought, if not so be it.

 

Would removing the veto powers of China, Russia, France, UK and US make the UN a better functioning organisation and if the contributions of each member were based on size and wealth that would mean that once more the US would be shouldering much of the burden.

 

The U.N in this present world will never achieve a united force to deal with a crisis militarily. The logistics are far too complex, not the least of which would be language, politics and communications alone

 

Also the mindset is always that countries jealously guard their military forces from outside interference. Just assembling a coalition of the willing among the principal world powers for the invasion of Iraq was difficult enough with France deciding to take no part. Politicians always look at which way the wind is blowing when such decisions are to be made. Obviously their concerns are for their own political parties and how it will affect them in some upcoming election always take priority over international affairs.

 

The UN will continue as it always has as an organization that extends aid in the forms of medicine and education etc to needy countries and in the case of Israel for instance any attempt to condemn it's actions will always be vetoed by the US simply because of the American Jewish vote

[Mecky]

In the Islamic State you don't need any qualifications to be an observer or a bringer of humanitarian aid to these folks. You just need a head attatched to your shoulders that they can remove because you don't share their jaded religious views. So get yourself off over there. You are fully qualified to send us reports about US missiles going astray.

 

It has nothing to do with religion. It's all to do with politics and natural resources. Have you noticed that most islamic terrorism is concentrated in areas with large natural resources?

[mjw47]

Would removing the veto powers of China, Russia, France, UK and US make the UN a better functioning organisation and if the contributions of each member were based on size and wealth that would mean that once more the US would be shouldering much of the burden.

 

The U.N in this present world will never achieve a united force to deal with a crisis militarily. The logistics are far too complex, not the least of which would be language, politics and communications alone

 

Also the mindset is always that countries jealously guard their military forces from outside interference. Just assembling a coalition of the willing among the principal world powers for the invasion of Iraq was difficult enough with France deciding to take no part. Politicians always look at which way the wind is blowing when such decisions are to be made. Obviously their concerns are for their own political parties and how it will affect them in some upcoming election always take priority over international affairs.

 

The UN will continue as it always has as an organization that extends aid in the forms of medicine and education etc to needy countries and in the case of Israel for instance any attempt to condemn it's actions will always be vetoed by the US simply because of the American Jewish vote

 

Yes, I appreciate all of that, good summation, but what I was saying was ' In an ideal world '.

 

The problem of 'outside interference ' with individual countries military could be resolved by the UN having it's own 'rapid reaction force' which would owe allegiance only to the UN.

 

Obviously support such as aircraft carriers etc could be borrowed on a case by case basis.

 

There would be no problem finding volunteers for such a force as there are always young men who want to fight and if it was agreed that the UN would take responsibility for future problems they would be inundated with applicants.

 

If any insurgents knew that following an emergency vote at the UN they were going to face elite troops backed by all member countries they would perhaps think twice.

 

There would need to be a number of laws included to protect against misuse of course.

 

One would be that the UN cannot interfere with the sovereignty of any democratic country without it's request for help.

 

As I said ' In an ideal world ', it will never happen because of the reasons you state, vested interest will always trump commonsense.

[donuticus]

Mmmm....Would I rather be killed by a terrorist or a drone...?

 

Decisions, decisions.........

 

The odds on you being killed by either are infinitesimally small.

 

As long as the drones save the lives of US/UK/NATO/UN soldiers then I'm all for it.

[The Joker]

. . .a man capable of doing what he did should never have been left in power.

 

A man capable of doing what he did should never been put into power in the first place.

 

Unfortunately, US interests trumps human rights every time, which is the Yanks were happy to support Saddam in his war against Iran.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

 

[Harleyman]

Yes, I appreciate all of that, good summation, but what I was saying was ' In an ideal world '.

 

The problem of 'outside interference ' with individual countries military could be resolved by the UN having it's own 'rapid reaction force' which would owe allegiance only to the UN.

 

Obviously support such as aircraft carriers etc could be borrowed on a case by case basis.

 

There would be no problem finding volunteers for such a force as there are always young men who want to fight and if it was agreed that the UN would take responsibility for future problems they would be inundated with applicants.

 

If any insurgents knew that following an emergency vote at the UN they were going to face elite troops backed by all member countries they would perhaps think twice.

 

There would need to be a number of laws included to protect against misuse of course.

 

One would be that the UN cannot interfere with the sovereignty of any democratic country without it's request for help.

 

As I said ' In an ideal world ', it will never happen because of the reasons you state, vested interest will always trump commonsense.

 

Unfortunately we do not and never have, nor probably never will, live in an "ideal world" We just have to make the best of the world as it is for all it's faults. I will now say Amen close my prayer book, don my sandals and get me unto the wilderness

[Bigthumb]

It has nothing to do with religion. It's all to do with politics and natural resources. Have you noticed that most islamic terrorism is concentrated in areas with large natural resources?

 

You mean in Egypt, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon and Afghanistan they are wanting to steal the sand?

 

I've noticed most Islamic terrorism is concentrated on areas with large numbers of muslims.

[The Joker]

I've noticed most Islamic terrorism is concentrated on areas with large numbers of muslims.

 

Wow, I never realised that! You are a genius, really!

 

I think I should move to Northern Ireland, I've not seen any signs of ISINL taking over yet.

[buck]

I think the US should significantly downsize it's huge military which because of it's cost is sapping the strength of it's economy.

 

NATO should also be disbanded, all US forces withdrawn from Europe and let the EU fund it's own combined military forces. You can then deal with Putin and Russia on your own. The US has no cause to get into a war with Russia anyway. Who cares about a bit of the Ukraine going back to Russia. That does not impact the US in any way. If Putin starts to grab other little bits of territory then deal with it

 

It's a ridiculous state of affairs when China launched their new 50 billion dollar bank which could eventually threaten US dominance in world finance and at the same time continue to focus on building a strong economy while the US continues to weaken it's own economy by spending vast resources on maintaining the world's largest military to, in part protecting it's allies, including those allies who are joining China's bank. :loopy:

 

After ISIS and Al Qaeda have been smashed then we should get the hell out of the middle east as well. We no longer rely on middle east oil anyway. Brazil, Mexico, Canada and the US can produce enough to keep this part of the world amply supplied and in addition supply many other parts of the world also

To hell with the rest of the world, we owe it no favors. UK had only the channel to cut itself off from European idiocy, we have the whole Atlantic ocean.