Fucking Transnational Armies, How Do They Work?

Yeah, I fund UN RUE a bit irritating myself. The bits I could see in Hotel Rwanda... well...

And they weren't much use in Kosovo either, were they?

edited 12th Jan '11 4:25:01 PM by RawPower

Or Bosnia, if the stories I heard from my fellow soldiers who pulled a stint there were accurate.

Like, watching a woman getting gang-raped outside the compound gate and not being able to do a thing about it, as they weren't getting shot at. Yeah, the guy was just a little bit bitter about the whole thing.

What are they, journalists?

Well, if I remember correctly that was pre-Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which set a new precedent for how to deal with using military force to intervene in an area. Not sure how much of a change it's made though.

I think you start with small countries, since they stand to gain the most from something like this. You need to beat a medium sized aggressor country, and then the thing would start to take off. Pay for it with modest donations from a large number of little countries and you might have enough seed money to begin. Build it on the national army of a small but plausibly advanced country with a good military reputation. South Africa or Turkey come to mind.

I can only imagine the anthem of such a union would be this.

You'd rather doom the human race to a horrible death than let it be united in (possibly) awful conditions?

Given just how awful it can get, how quickly it can get there, and how utterly hopeless it would be to dislodge such a thing, I would not at all blame someone for considering it a Fate Worse than Death. I'd probably be in that crowd myself.

edited 12th Jan '11 4:38:09 PM by Pykrete

That was back in the 90's, yes. Our revised UN should allow the military deployed over to an area to function like police, basically.

I think that every country should use Katamari music as its anthem. I call Wanda Wanda.

Personally, I'd restrict that to countries whose names start with "J" and end with "apan." And I honestly think it would be a bad idea even for just them.

HOLY SHIT THAT WOULD BE AWESOME

But here's an alternate suggestion:

Since we've begun to invoke fiction  ^*

Hotel Rwanda is, in fact, non-fiction.

I meant more about that we've begun to post youtube videos, than Hotel Rwanda. But I'd say we're beginning to veer off topic, so to stop this trend I'll ask instead, how do you think plausible is for an attempt in creation of such a superstate (or quasi-superstate) to end in a large-scale equivalent of the American Civil War?

Maybe we get a UFN VS Britannia Scenario? One powerful populous country/faction/empire wants to dominate the rest of the federation, and refuses the conditions imposed on them so they try to conquer it by force?

edited 12th Jan '11 5:12:45 PM by RawPower

^^Oh, that's probably guaranteed at some point, sooner than later if we don't plan properly.

So, who wants to start writing? I did most of the writing on the constitution thread, so I am ducking out this time, although I will provide helpful ideas and useful feedback...

Dude, nobody has your courage, your discipline, your organization or your sense of awesome. You wa SHOCK (ai de sora ga ochite kuru).

edited 12th Jan '11 7:37:03 PM by RawPower

NATO bombing in Bosnia counts, right?

As Rwanda was a Canadian-led mission, I felt it appropriate to learn more about. Let me just cast away one misconception. ROE was NOT the reason the mission failed. (Also ROE for UN Peacekeepers allows them to shoot back, but they can't go on offensive missions in the difference.) ROE is never really the reason why a mission fails, it's an overly simplistic view of what are always complicated political quagmires.

When five peacekeepers were killed (due to being ridiculously outnumbered by an angry mob), all the white nations basically pulled out (except Canada but we didn't have much presence there anyway). Then the US spent the entire time in the UNSC being an asshole and blocking the deployment of peacekeepers by arguing that there was no genocide. The entire time the Canadian commander was doing everything in his power to get enough manpower to actually do something but with only 500 AU soldiers under his command, he could bsaically do nothing but sit and watch as 800 000 people were chopped to death by machetes. Worse yet, the Rwandan military was backed by the French government. (He almost committed suicide because of his failure in the genocide)

The issue is again, the UNSC permanent members doing things to help one another. I don't know specifically why the USA decided to just use its veto power to let the Rwandan genocide happen but the French most certainly didn't want the beans spilled that they trained, armed and continued to back [during the genocide] the Rwandan military.

I would prefer the UNSC not be based on nations but based on individuals. Fifteen people rotated in and out for ten year terms each. They come from the best and brightest across the world with no limits on who can go in, so long as people like them. We could have regional votes for the UNSC, with seats split by regions. For non-democratic areas, we could still stick with despot-appointed officials sent in but at least some of the UNSC is still better off.

edited 13th Jan '11 8:10:39 AM by breadloaf

I like your idea. I also didn't know about the French and American role here...

...

...

If what you're saying is true then... y'know, sometimes using a Death Note doesn't seem like such a bad idea... I know this is physically unsound, but sometimes you get the feeling some people truly deserve to die. Messily.

I knew about both. The French are some real bastards.

Developing a rule-based process of intervention has some merit, but you would have to come up with some pretty robust rules. This would basically take the decision regarding whether or not to intervene in a country away from the political process, and submit it to a system. Sort of "if this happens, then troops invade..."

^That's the intent of Responsibility to Protect, but it's still reliant on the Security Council and its five members with instant veto following it.

I like breadloafs proposal on determining the UNSC chairs.

Wasn't Vietnam another French-USA unholy union?

That's when the Franch taught the CIA how to torture people.

Ugh. I'd like nothing better than to go back in time and make it so that we helped Ho Chi Minh achieve his dream for independence from the French. I bet the Cold War would have played far differently as a result.