i have a question about UN soldiers
AFSteliga
Token Canadian Moder'eh'tor
It might be a bit more complicated than this, but here goes:
If your nation is part of the UN, and the UN is performing an operation (just like the countless ones they got on the go already), and your unit is chosen to go into the field under a UN flag, that would be the way to become a UN Soldier.
If your nation is part of the UN, and the UN is performing an operation (just like the countless ones they got on the go already), and your unit is chosen to go into the field under a UN flag, that would be the way to become a UN Soldier.
03USMC
Active member
UN member Nations provide the Military Forces for UN operations. In a UN operation you deploy as a member of your Countries Military as part of a UN Multi National Force.
You are not serving as a UN solider but as a member of your countries military so your oath to your country is still valid. And refusal to follow orders still punishable under your Militaries Laws and Codes.
You are not serving as a UN solider but as a member of your countries military so your oath to your country is still valid. And refusal to follow orders still punishable under your Militaries Laws and Codes.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
That's only part of the oath. At least for the US military. In The Oath of Service you swear to protect The Constitution, to defend the nation from all threats foreign and domestic and to obey all lawful orders of the President and your superiors - in that order. So if the President orders your unit to participate in a UN action you will obey that order and follow all lawful commands from your superiors in that operation. Now do you understand?
godofthunder9010
Active member
Been awhile since we had a nice UN bashing session, hasn't it?Renegade said:
Um, to reinterate my view, the UN is totally useless for everything but Humanitarian Aid and Peacekeeping (only when there is nothing going on anymore anyways.)
But along the topic, I'm curious about something. Is there any particular advantage for you/me/anyone signing up for UN service as opposed to regular military service for one's country? Only thing I can think of: Lower likelihood of being deployed to an active combat zone.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
You don't "sign up" for UN service. If your unit is deployed for UN service then that's how you participate and in no other way. You only serve your military. If your unit has been given a task by the President and thereby the DoD you do it. The President agrees to UN cooperation - you don't. You obey his directive within your own chain of command. No servicemember takes direct orders from the UN.
As for how I feel about the UN, well it's lost alot of its thunder over the years that's for sure. It still has its uses though. Less and less as a peacekeeping agency unfortunately. Now it is mostly a forum for international discussion and that's still a good thing to have around. The UN needs to have more bite than the bark its been showing of late though for it to have any kind of respect as a means to peace.
As for how I feel about the UN, well it's lost alot of its thunder over the years that's for sure. It still has its uses though. Less and less as a peacekeeping agency unfortunately. Now it is mostly a forum for international discussion and that's still a good thing to have around. The UN needs to have more bite than the bark its been showing of late though for it to have any kind of respect as a means to peace.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Unless "Permanent UNSC Seats" is redefined, the push for additional nations to be added will likely pull out whatever teeth the UN has left. To be specific, I'm talking about the veto powers. Its enough trouble with 5 autokill vetos possible. What does it look like with 10? 14? More?
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
godofthunder9010 said:
I am not entirely sure how to solve the veto issues, several options have been put forward from leaving the number of veto nations as it is but increasing the number of nations on the PSC thus allowing power blocks to form there to removing the veto option altogether and simply going for the "democratic" two thirds majority option.
Personally I think both options will lead to a case of paralysis by analysis, to be frank I think it was a nifty idea created in idealistic frame of mind that has out lived its usefulness. The only way to make the UN useful again as a "diplomatic/military" tool is to make its decisions binding and I doubt any nations will go for that.
Charge 7 said:
The signup depends on the country, you can sign up for UN service in Sweden through Swedint. Although as you say its more of a sign up through your countrys army rather then directly to the UN, but it still counts as a sign up
Can even seek service through the unemployment offiece. Same time as its a reqruitmentCharge 7 said:
Thats good, and its good to know!
I actually don't know what to call the swedish version, a sign up or something else, as some parts (as of how i have understood it) have to do service aboard and some can sign up for it so I guess its a bit of both when I think about it
AlexKall said:I actually don't know what to call the swedish version, a sign up or something else, as some parts (as of how i have understood it) have to do service aboard and some can sign up for it so I guess its a bit of both when I think about it
It's the same in Norway as well..
Up until a few years ago you volunteered to (almost) all service abroad, both UN and NATO..
I did that when I went to Lebanon (UN), Macedonia (UN) and Bosnia (NATO) in 98-99..
But in the recent years you can be sent abroad if your job speciality is needed there, or if your unit is going.
You must serve abroad at least once if you want to make a career in the Military now, or else it's very hard to get a promotion.
This is only for the officers, the soldiers still volunteers.
(except Special Forces and professional soldiers, but you can say that they volunteered for it by signing the contract anyway..
)AussieNick
Forum Digger
It's like the Australian military ethic. "To protect your mates, Australia, Australia's assets and interests, and the interests and assets of Australia's allies". If part of that means serving in the UN as part of an Australian contingent, than so be it.
Redleg said:AlexKall said:I actually don't know what to call the swedish version, a sign up or something else, as some parts (as of how i have understood it) have to do service aboard and some can sign up for it so I guess its a bit of both when I think about it
It's the same in Norway as well..
Up until a few years ago you volunteered to (almost) all service abroad, both UN and NATO..
I did that when I went to Lebanon (UN), Macedonia (UN) and Bosnia (NATO) in 98-99..
But in the recent years you can be sent abroad if your job speciality is needed there, or if your unit is going.
You must serve abroad at least once if you want to make a career in the Military now, or else it's very hard to get a promotion.
This is only for the officers, the soldiers still volunteers.
(except Special Forces and professional soldiers, but you can say that they volunteered for it by signing the contract anyway..
Yeah exactly how i understood it, as officers here has to do service aboard. And of course the profecional soldiers, although that basicly is only officers (that i know of) lol
Damien435
Active member
abrams said:
The UN was formed as a peace keeping force and to provide humanitarian aid around the world. It is supposed to be a peaceful forum in which the nations of the world can solve their disputes through diplomacy in a setting where neither party holds all the cards. The UN has Peace Keepers, not soldiers, they are extremely limited in their abilities to engage enemies. This is why the genocide in Rwanda which has since moved into the Congo goes unchecked. The current UN peace keeping force in the Congo, to the best of my knowledge, consists of 300 Bangladeshi peace keepers, and all they are allowed to do is protect UN assets in country. The UN is far to limited in its ability to use force IMO. That combined with the racism that still exists in America and Europe means that the UN will do nothing about further genocides that do not involve white people. You can argue the point but there is plenty of factual basis for my statement. Millions more Chinese than Jews were killed by the Chinese during WWII but nobody seems to care. The Western led UN has made a point of avoiding the issue of genocide across the world. One of the key arguments for establishing the UN was to prevent future genocides, yet we do nothing.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded as a military alliance to counter the threat posed by the Soviets. This is not an economic alliance, strictly militaristic, many other treaties came about because of this, most of which were economic in nature, but none of them were part of the NATO charter.
Why would we want to lose our allies? There are still threats out there against the US and Western Europe, most notably Al Qeada, but many others exist. And the US is already over extended, but nothing like the Roman Empire, a comparison I am sick of hearing.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Damien435 said:
Bang on the money.
Some high up snob doesn't give a flying fvck about starving African kids or mass executions in some Southeast Asian country.
Liberate Iraqis? Hell no. They're not white.
You see how the EU flocked to the whole Yugoslavia problem like flies to a pile of sh1t? There, they once again proved that they needed the US, even for problems in their own back door. It should have been a case where Europe showed that by working together, they could accomplish delicate and important missions. I guess not.
Then you have a real humanitarian problem in the Sudan. And NOTHING.
Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are left to die because they're not white.
I seldom bring up the whole race thing, but I am simply convinced this is the case. Why is it justified to save Jews from executioners then say some intervention to save others from executioners is a "wrong and immoral war" and that we "should not interfere with other peoples' problems"?
Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
godofthunder9010 said:
It's possible that your pay will be hígher when you are a UN soldier. That's why soldiers from poor countries would rather be taken hostage than fight. They go on UN missions to get some cash (so they can maybe leave the military and start a business), not to die. Not that I'm blaming them for that.