Which should the U.N. have?

2007-07-31 20:08:15

#1

Liberal-Sl@yer: Certified BF2S Asshole; +131|6897|The edge of sanity

Before you vote think about it.

If the U.N. is to keep their peace keepers that means that they are highly limited when engaged in combat, but it does make the international community look a whole lot better. Kinda of like the U.N. soliders in Hotel Rwawanda.

Now if the U.N. were to have Peacemakers then they would be able to take out hostiles much quicker and be more effective at thier tasks. The downside is that our international view would be shit.

Well vote and discuss

2007-07-31 20:20:10

#2

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6847|North Carolina

In all honesty, the way things usually work, the U.N. serves as a peacekeeping force, but individual nations usually lead the charge in an all-out war.

After the messy Somalia conflict in the 90s, I think it's a good thing that America now maintains a strong sense of autonomy in its use of military forces.

I think unilateralism is a serious mistake, but multilateralism doesn't require the aid of the U.N.

2007-07-31 20:21:34

#3

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|7087

makers since keepers are not as doing of a good job as they should

2007-07-31 20:23:42

#4

Liberal-Sl@yer: Certified BF2S Asshole; +131|6897|The edge of sanity

blademaster wrote:
makers since keepers are not as doing of a good job as they should

I would have to agree. The peacekeepers sent to Rawanda wernt allowed to do anythign not even fire. The peacekeepers sent to leabonon were absolute shit as well.

2007-07-31 20:25:09

#5

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|7087

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
blademaster wrote:
makers since keepers are not as doing of a good job as they should
I would have to agree. The peacekeepers sent to Rawanda wernt allowed to do anythign not even fire. The peacekeepers sent to leabonon were absolute shit as well.

good point well stated,+1 for thinking outside the box

2007-07-31 20:28:33

#6

David.P: Banned; +649|6715

Colt Peacemaker? lol Anyway they really are peace makers, They are sent into a warzone and make the fighting stop. So yeah my vote goes to Peacemakers. If they really were peace keepers they would be sent into a non hostile zone.

/Off topic Would'nt it be cool if all UN troops were issued Colt single action army revolvers?

2007-07-31 20:31:24

#7

chittydog: less busy; +586|7277|Kubra, Damn it!

David.P wrote:
Colt Peacemaker? lol Anyway they really are peace makers, They are sent into a warzone and make the fighting stop. So yeah my vote goes to Peacemakers. If they really were peace keepers they would be sent into a non hostile zone.

/Off topic Would'nt it be cool if all UN troops were issued Colt single action army revolvers?

I'm sure the guys shooting at them with AK-47s would think so.

2007-07-31 20:32:18

#8

Liberal-Sl@yer: Certified BF2S Asshole; +131|6897|The edge of sanity

David.P wrote:
Colt Peacemaker? lol Anyway they really are peace makers, They are sent into a warzone and make the fighting stop. So yeah my vote goes to Peacemakers. If they really were peace keepers they would be sent into a non hostile zone.

/Off topic Would'nt it be cool if all UN troops were issued Colt single action army revolvers?

In modern warfare they would be totally useless (colts i mean)

On Topic: Im not goign for a literal deffinition here, Im saying that the fact that the peacekeeping troops must clear an actual target before engaging is bullshit. This leaves them wide open to be slaughtered like lambs. If they were allowed to engage any target that made themselves hostile as peacemakers would be, not only would they be more effective but they would have a much longer life span.

2007-07-31 20:49:03

#9

David.P: Banned; +649|6715

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
David.P wrote:
Colt Peacemaker? lol Anyway they really are peace makers, They are sent into a warzone and make the fighting stop. So yeah my vote goes to Peacemakers. If they really were peace keepers they would be sent into a non hostile zone.

/Off topic Would'nt it be cool if all UN troops were issued Colt single action army revolvers?
In modern warfare they would be totally useless (colts i mean)

On Topic: Im not goign for a literal deffinition here, Im saying that the fact that the peacekeeping troops must clear an actual target before engaging is bullshit. This leaves them wide open to be slaughtered like lambs. If they were allowed to engage any target that made themselves hostile as peacemakers would be, not only would they be more effective but they would have a much longer life span.

/Off topic Yeah i know but fuck they would be cool.

On topic true true but non literally they are peace makers.

2007-07-31 20:54:55

#10

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6910

David.P wrote:
Colt Peacemaker? lol Anyway they really are peace makers, They are sent into a warzone and make the fighting stop. So yeah my vote goes to Peacemakers. If they really were peace keepers they would be sent into a non hostile zone.

/Off topic Would'nt it be cool if all UN troops were issued Colt single action army revolvers?

I'd be even cooler if they used S&W 626 like Dirty Harry did!

Oh and the UN should be the guys who create peace not enforce it.

2007-07-31 21:01:03

#11

David.P: Banned; +649|6715

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
David.P wrote:
Colt Peacemaker? lol Anyway they really are peace makers, They are sent into a warzone and make the fighting stop. So yeah my vote goes to Peacemakers. If they really were peace keepers they would be sent into a non hostile zone.

/Off topic Would'nt it be cool if all UN troops were issued Colt single action army revolvers?
I'd be even cooler if they used S&W 626 like Dirty Harry did!

Yeah! We should just give em all Revolvers and force em to watch hundred of action films! Then we might get something done!

2007-08-01 03:08:35

#12

zeidmaan: Member; +234|6856|Vienna

In Bosnia they werent very effective as Peacemakers. Only few airstikes (mostly by US) were conducted but infantry never engaged in combat. On many occasions foreign soldiers were "detained" as hostages without fighting back (at one point over 400 soldiers). Generally they were mostly ignored by Serb forces.
One thing they were good at (sometimes) was collecting sniper casualties from the streets with APCs.
Overall Peacemaking mission was only a diplomatic success. Militarily not much.

But since the peace treaty there was no more fighting so you could say that the Peacekeeping mission was total success.

2007-08-01 03:18:39

#13

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6997

Null vote. The UN should be disbanded.

2007-08-01 03:26:11

#14

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6732|Éire

Turquoise wrote:
In all honesty, the way things usually work, the U.N. serves as a peacekeeping force, but individual nations usually lead the charge in an all-out war.

After the messy Somalia conflict in the 90s, I think it's a good thing that America now maintains a strong sense of autonomy in its use of military forces.

I think unilateralism is a serious mistake, but multilateralism doesn't require the aid of the U.N.

I advocate isolationism in most situations but if the shit is truly hitting the fan and action is needed multilateralism is the only option.

By the way the UN are a bunch of eunuchs.

2007-08-01 03:40:12

#15

[pt] KEIOS: srs bsns; +231|7094|pimelteror.de

Every nation of the security council should give a task force to the UN, which is under UN command. So if the General Assembly or the SC decides to make/keep peace anywhere, they do not have to get their soldiers from nations like pakistan or from the african union.
Give them the right to shoot first, the newest equipment and the biggest guns - because atm, most of the blue helmets are just worth a laugh...

2007-08-01 06:20:53

#16

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7158

[pt] KEIOS wrote:
Every nation of the security council should give a task force to the UN, which is under UN command. So if the General Assembly or the SC decides to make/keep peace anywhere, they do not have to get their soldiers from nations like pakistan or from the african union.
Give them the right to shoot first, the newest equipment and the biggest guns - because atm, most of the blue helmets are just worth a laugh...

Just create Rainbow 6.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2007-08-01 06:34:17

#17

BVC: Member; +325|7137

Both, TBH.

2007-08-01 07:04:04

#18

Tjasso: the "Commander"; +102|6965|the Netherlands

Peacekeeping, as defined by the United Nations, is "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed.

Peacemaking is a form of conflict resolution which focuses on establishing equal power relationships that will be robust enough to forestall future conflict, and establishing some means of agreeing on ethical decisions within a community that has previously had conflict.
according to wiki ...

imo:
Peacekeeping = keeping and holding peace through military force (limited)* AFTER a major conflict
Peacemaking = forcing peace through talking and agreements while In a conflict

* ROE !!

Which should the U.N. have? ... good question !! hard to tell ...

if a country ... any country should be in a conflict ... civil or war and injustice is been done ...
any country should DO something to stop it by any means necessary
no matter what ... its always going to be the hard way , blood sweat and tears on all sides in the end ...DEATH & Destruction

this is a thread to think about

2007-08-01 07:41:37

#19

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6664|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:
Null vote. The UN should be disbanded.

k we'll use the Army or Marines,

I'd say Peacemakers go in first, clear out the major threats to aid and so on, then the Peacekeepers come in and hold the place.

2007-08-01 16:03:29

#20

Sgt.Davi: Touches Himself At Night.; +300|7085|England

In the changing 3rd world, dictators are making life shit for just about everybody. I vote Peacemakers and I also hope that if Peacemakers are allowed their first task will be to make peace in Zimbabwe, and kill that POS Mugabe for fucking good.

2007-08-01 16:21:35

#21

Blehm98: conservative hatemonger; +150|6905|meh-land

CameronPoe wrote:
Null vote. The UN should be disbanded.

2007-08-02 04:14:36

#22

zeidmaan: Member; +234|6856|Vienna

M.O.A.B wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Null vote. The UN should be disbanded.
k we'll use the Army or Marines,

I'd say Peacemakers go in first, clear out the major threats to aid and so on, then the Peacekeepers come in and hold the place.

Peacemakers will never work because countries that send them will never commit to actually fight hard and loose soldiers.
They just give a false sense of security and hinder the good side in the conflict. They cause more trouble.
Peacekeepers actually help in more ways than one. They help disarm civilian populations, they are good in clearing out mines, they are good for the economy by spending a lot of foreign currency and providing a lot of jobs, they distribute food and different kind of supplies etc.

Basically they are good for everything except fighting

2007-08-02 05:11:05

#23

Jepeto87: Member; +38|7127|Dublin

Sometimes there given a peace enforcement mandate like in Liberia. Its up to the goverments of the troops involved.

2007-08-02 12:14:11

#24

Karbin: Member; +42|6736

The big problem is wither you have a Chapter 7 mission or a Chapter 8 mission.
Rwanda started as a 7. Attempts were made by the U.N. command in country
to keep it from hitting the fan. U.N. H.Q. refused to listen to the staff in-country.
To the point that, in one message, the local Command of mission as to intervene
and search for weapons to stop the massacre BEFORE it started.
U.N. H.Q. denied the force in-country the ability to act.
The mission was a Chapter 7, to search for weapons would be a Chapter 8 op.
To change from a 7 to a 8 needs either the Gen Assembly vote or a Security Counsel vote.

Peacemakers	58%	58% - 28
Peacekeepers	41%	41% - 20
Total: 48

BF2S Forums Which should the U.N. have?

Poll

blademaster wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

blademaster wrote:

David.P wrote:

David.P wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

David.P wrote:

David.P wrote:

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

David.P wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Board footer