A Standing Army for the UN?

Cross posted at Reject the UN

Hat tip to LoneWacko

This is not a new proposal, but it has some high powered support in Congress now. In the 1950's and 60's this would have been a good idea, the UN wasn't a hotbed of scandal and corruption. But today the opposite is true.

The United Nations Peacekeeping Forces come in 2 flavors.

The first flavor are the member forces of the Civilized World. They have done a great job in keeping the peace and providing security for refugees and other civilians since the 1950's and the Korean War. Unfortunately, the nations that are members of this flavor have decided not to send troops to the UN any longer. They became tired of the job and the expense of the job. In doing that, the Blue Berets were then forced to rely on the second flavor.

The second flavor are the member forces from the developing and Muslim world. They are known for corruption, scandal and rape. Their idea of peacekeeping is to bribe and extort what they can get out of the refugees and civilians they are suppose to protect. These are the current Peacekeepers in the world. And they have given the Blue Berets a very black eye.

With our knowledge of this, why would anyone propose a permanent army for the UN? Who in their right mind would do this?

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."

Again the left try to do something good for the world without thinking out the whole ramifications. Who do they think will man this force and who will pay for it.

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.

And we all know who will pay the $2 billion. The United States! Why not? We must have an extra couple of billion dollars thrown around somewhere.

And of course there are some in Congress who actually support this idea.

Bob Alexander (D-MI 08), Daniel Seals (D-IL 10), Stephen Todd Sarvi (D-MN 02), Darcy Burner (D-WA 08), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jill Morgenthaler (D-IL 06), Jigar Ashwin Madia (D-MN 03), Linda Stender (D-NJ 07), Gerry Connolly (D-VA 11), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Thomas Perriello (D-VA 05), Eric Massa (D-NY 29).

Let us call them the Dirty Dozen. They refuse to see how the UN has become a cesspool of corruption and scandal. They refuse to see how the once proud Peacekeepers have become nothing more than a gang of thugs and rapists. And yet they would allow these thugs to be a rapid response force. I guess they have to get them there fast before all the virgins are gone.

Here's a trick question to ask those who think that this is a good idea:

You support the UNEPS, a standing military force for the United Nations that could be used in places like Darfur. Couldn't it also be used in case of a natural disaster inside the U.S. where our resources are strapped, such as in case of a terrorist attack or something like Katrina?

If this idea scares you, you are not alone.
It would be too scary to contemplate.