Has the United Nations outlived its usefulness in World Order or does it need to be reorganized?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:32:32 -0400

Has the United Nations outlived its usefulness in World Order or does it need to be reorganized?

The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was established on 24 October 1945 following the Second World War to prevent another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51 member states; there are now 193. The headquarters of the United Nations is in Manhattan, New York City, and experiences extraterritoriality.

Do we give the institution more power or do we dismantle it?

Do we come up with a new World Organization that brings the countries together for world issues and what does that look like?

Do we go back to the days before the United Nations and the League of Nations in 1920 prior to WW1 and let each country work out their own issues, create its own treaties and alliances, and solve its own problems (and if another country comes to their aid so be it)?

CAPT Michael Moran SGT Private RallyPoint Member Dennis Aubuchon CH (CPT) James L. Machado WorkmanSSG Alan PelletierMSgt Rich Medina SSG David AndrewsJeremiah McMillanSGT Mia Mason SFC James William Bolt [ 40 Yards ]]Letise Dennis PV2 J M CPO Nate S.PO2 David Keener CMSgt William Reed PO3 Grant Skiles

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 30 at 2015 6:37 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:37:19 -0400

It needs to go the way of the League of Nations. It is worse than useless; it is a place that allows repressive regimes to run human rights commissions and other such nonsense. Its peacekeepers cannot keep the peace and simply become targets until they retreat, and its inspectors and sanctions managers are typically bribed by those supposedly being sanctioned.

They have the same effect as six wolves and a sheep voting on what's for super; the repressive regimes outnumber the responsible ones.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 6:40 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:40:50 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs I don't think it has outlived it's usefulness. Simply put the principal behind the creation of the U.N was to provide a way for nations to address issues with each other without resorting to war, to address cultural and humanitarian issues, to ensure security, . We look around the world and all we see are humanitarian issues, terrorism, piracy, threats of war, societal implosion (race war), I think the personnel there are failing to do their jobs. I don't think giving the U.N. more power will be useful they aren't managing the resources they have properly. This does not mean they do not have the potential to work together, they do. As the world population gets larger the world in a sense gets smaller. Each country has more demand on a limited amount of resources and this leads them to be more me oriented than us oriented. If we could change this thought pattern instead of having what's best for my nation and have what's best for the World perhaps they could make a difference that will be larger than themselves. It's an idea I doubt it will ever happen because human beings as a species are selfish.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Aug 30 at 2015 6:45 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:45:45 -0400

It needs to be disbanded .

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 30 at 2015 6:54 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:54:59 -0400

I concur with Capt Seid Waddell. The UN ought to go the way of the League of nations first proposed by President Woodrow Wilson at the end of WWI. The League of Nations died on the vine as the nations of the world moved towards WWII.
The UN was proposed by President FDR during WWII when there was a clear delineation between extreme evil on the part of the AXIS and their Muslim allies in the middle east [Grand Mufti in Jerusalem, etc.] and the allies and the neutral nations.
The UN was pretty useless for most nations during the colonial uprising, the starvations in biafra, sudan, darfur, and the numerous wars that have occurred since the UN was founded.
The UN has not stopped a war yet? It failed in Algeria, Southeast and Northeast Asia, many places in Africa and the middle east. The biggest boosts for peace in our time were Nixon's rapprochement with communist China during his administration, the Camp David Accords in the Carter administration, and the falling of the Soviet empire in the Reagan administration. In each of these cases the UN was impotent as it was during the first gulf war, OEF, etc.
The way the UN bureaucracy "functions" we have had some of the most vile nations in the world elected to serve on committees where they have had numerous violations - including slavery, genocide, etc.
THe USA provides disproportionate funding to keep the UN solvent while enduring their presence in NY City and the diplomatic immunity the delegates exercise - the unpaid parking fees alone are staggering each year.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Aug 30 at 2015 6:57 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:57:40 -0400

Unsure as to what we should do, but I do feel that we DO NOT go back to the days before the United Nations and the League of Nations. Deciding to let each country work out their own issues, create its own treaties and alliances, and solve its own problems, even if this were done gradually, would make it much easier for our and their adversaries to "do bad things"; and for the US to now have to try to recover at a later date (which, history has shown, we would have to act at some point) would be darned near impossible without loss of life, as we would have to do a lot of "rescuing". Disbanding would have the same effect. I don't believe we need to lose the ground already covered, but I do believe some re-organization is in order, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to make recommendations as to what that reorganization should entail and to what extent... I wish I could contribute more to this as I do find it interesting, but recommending action for the intertwined reaction for each action is far too much for this feeble brain.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 7:39 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:39:59 -0400

There are some good parts to the UN but most of it is a joke. No one really respects their peace keepers in general. When there is a chance to get money for helping soldiers from countries will go but when there is fighting their country will quickly pull out and leave the situation worse off than it was when they got there. It is a joke in many aspects. Think the UN is going to fix anything is the worst.

Response by MSgt Jamie Lyons made Aug 30 at 2015 7:47 PM

MSgt Jamie Lyons — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:47:59 -0400

What if the US just stop their portion of funding of the UN? I believe it would collapse as most of the UN is funded by the US.

Response by SSG Stephen Arnold made Aug 30 at 2015 7:58 PM

SSG Stephen Arnold — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:58:31 -0400

"Outlived?"

The UN never has lived up to its intended "usefulness". It is a useless organization and has been since its inception. Frankly I find it to be largely anti-American in the last few decades, except when it comes to taking OUR money to fund its activities.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 8:18 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 20:18:24 -0400

A political organization that has no real power except that which the United States gives it.

If we would like our rights to be trampled on, we should go right ahead and give it more power.

It all depends on what we want. The organization was created to prevent war... Has it? Really? Nope.

My feelings about it are more so on the scale of a large forum to discuss issues that effect us all. I feel that is a good thing.

But nothing "passed" by the UN is binding in the United States without the ratification of the Senate, so it's power is completely neutralized.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 8:47 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 20:47:50 -0400

I worked for the UN in NY from 2008 to 2011, and I can say that the UN is not what it is cracked to be. Laws are only passed based on the member countries who agree to use what ever comes up during the General Assembly. The Security Council in which the 5 main permanent countries, (which are the same allied nations since WWII, which is UK, US, Russia, France, and China)... With 10 others who are voted in, but the majority votes come from whether the permanent members allow it. It is a dog and pony show for that place, and the US is the biggest contributor in funding at almost 23% of its financial deficit, the second largest is Japan at almost 11%, with only 3 other countries in the single digits, leaving the other countries at .005% for contributions...

Because it is such a controversial organizations, it is limited on power and can only use the Security Council to make laws that only benefit what is sees fit, and the General Assembly (GA) uses its two yearly functions to address matters that universally will be used worldwide, but its no guarantee. If you think about all rules and laws that apply such as the Geneva Convention, other countries that are members of the UN don't follow the rules or policies but are not even punished or expelled from the member seat.. So goes to show how political the UN really is...

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Aug 30 at 2015 9:05 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 21:05:15 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs IMO it's usefulness is gone. We give most of the money to run the damn place. I suggest dropping, not stopping, what we give and make the rest of the countries start coughing up some more money.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Aug 30 at 2015 9:20 PM

SSG John Jensen — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 21:20:59 -0400

there needs to be a method for the body as a whole to over-ride the vetoes of the permanent members of the security council, so many good things that the UN tries to do, but one member of the security council shouts NOPE!, and it doesn't happen, this needs to change

Response by LTC John Shaw made Aug 30 at 2015 9:40 PM

LTC John Shaw — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 21:40:05 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs The UN is a great idea, poorly executed.
The UN gives the symbolic representation to the world is working to solve problems, when in reality the UN is a bunch of self-interested people serving themselves engaged in cronyism.
It provides the gloss or cover of legitimacy without the action and passion behind it.
Governments are made legitimate via the social contract that exists with the population of the nation. In the US we have a direct election for Congress and indirect for the President via the electors within the Republican system.
The UN has NO members directly elected by anyone, these representatives are appointed. Nothing in the US constitution speaks to the enumerated powers vested in a supra-national government.
The UN is not a legitimate government and represents NO ONE.
You have some people like CPT Private RallyPoint Member that see problems in the world and want to resolve these issues. Great idea, we want to solve world problems now!
The UN is not granted the power, resources or authority to resolve any world problem but because it exists, some people assume that it may actually have the ability to do it.
ANY power, resources or authority granted will be LOST to the people who need it because the money will be redirected through the bureaucracy.

In summary, the UN does not solve problems, not legitimate, all resources provided are shamelessly redirected to the benefit of the politically connected. Good hearted people are misled.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 10:07 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 22:07:09 -0400

The UN is so ineffective anymore that it should be completely disbanded and all vestiges of its worthless and non-existent authority forever retracted.

Response by PO2 Jeffrey Sheibels made Aug 30 at 2015 11:33 PM

PO2 Jeffrey Sheibels — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:33:09 -0400

The UN has become a joke. It doesn't have the support form the major countries that have the largest military backing them any more. It is more like a not-for-profit organization trying to do good in the world. They can talk all day long and get government leaders to agree to things but it doesn't mean those countries will actually follow it. Most of the threats form the UN have no bit. If they tell a country to stop doing it the threat is that they will tell the country again....and again...and again. Until a country with a large enough military gets involved on their own.

For example, Saddam Hussein torture his own people. He even let his sons torture people. The UN told him to stop. He kept doing it. The UN told him again to stop. He stopped for a little bit. Then started again. Then the first President Bush said to stop and he kept doing it. Then he sent our troops in and he stopped for a little bit. Then started again. That is when 9/11 happened and another Bush was President. So he was telling Saddam to stop torturing his people. He continued. So what did the second President Bush do? He used terrorism and WMDs as an excuse to go into Iraq and remove him from power. And that is how the war in Iraq started.

So Yes, the UN has outlived its actual usefulness and is now pointless. Just like this whole gun treaty they are trying to make every country agree to that will make all firearms illegal to own.

Response by SSG James Arlington made Aug 30 at 2015 11:52 PM

SSG James Arlington — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:52:57 -0400

We need to be reorganized too. :(

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Aug 30 at 2015 11:54 PM

Cpl James Waycasie — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:54:02 -0400

I personally feel that there is no need for the U.N. I believe it is just another obstacle that we will eventually have to face. I see the reasoning in having a place where nations can meet and discuss problems and look for a peaceful solution rather than solving the problems with blood shed. Yet this really does not work at the present U.N. We would be much better served to honor our treaties and back our allies, you do not have to have an "Official Union of Nations" to conduct peace talks. I get asked advise a lot on what kind of pistol or rifle should I buy for self protection. My reply is always try handling other friends weapons and shop around, hold and feel of each weapon you like the looks of and see which one feels more comfortable to you. As far as caliber goes, I would not buy any caliber under a .380 for self defense in a pistol. I prefer a .40 caliber or a .45 myself for stopping power. I do also highly suggest that regardless of what you decide, you should add at least one 9mm pistol and one rifle that will shoot both the.223 and 5.56 bullets. You should own at least one of each. I am always asked why. I explain that Nato ammo for a pistol is normally 9 mm and that rifle ammo is 5.56, the civilian version being .223 and I always say make sure the rifle manual clearly states the rifle will fire both cartridges. Then they usually say what does that have to do with anything? I explain that the way our government is going and all of the civil unrest going on, that Civil War in this country is a possibility and if you had to stand and fight for your rights , it would be wise to own a few weapons that fire the same ammo as the UN troops carry as standard issue. If our Nation does rise, I believe the major forces we would have to deal with would be U.N. Troops. If you have the weapons they have, then you can use their ammo. Most people reply I never thought of that. Makes sense. As far as the Geneva convention and R.O.E.'s, I think we are about the only nation that bothers to try and follow them. I believe in fighting fire with fire. They don't follow the rules, neither should we. I see the U.N. as a thorn in our side and we would be better off looking after our own business and backing our true allies if need be and quit trying to support everybody else. We all know that the real reason for our involvement in the middle east is more about the oil resources and the money involved. If I were in charge of this country, I would pull out of the U.N., fire the Federal Reserve, print our own money instead of "borrowing from the Federal Reserves printing press. I would slow down on imports and try to re-establish "Made in the USA" again. I am not against helping other countries, but we cannot allow ourselves to become the Head Mistress of a World orphans home. We have the greatest Military force in the world and should fear no one, unfortunately we do not have the correct leadership to keep this country great ; the membership in the U.N. contributes to this problem greatly.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 31 at 2015 12:33 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:33:03 -0400

No I think it is a wonderful forum.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Aug 31 at 2015 6:11 AM

SSG Ed Mikus — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:11:46 -0400

I'm not sure dismantling it is the answer, but is is defiantly as useless as the US Congress currently. I believe it should be no more than a place for every country to have a voice to the others and host talks on treaties. I understand some limited authority would be needed, but I don't have the knowledge to address that, I just would like to see it limited and not include military action.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Aug 31 at 2015 7:15 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:15:54 -0400

The issue is there are disparate interests and some countries act solely on those interests. The word "united" in United Nations is a misuse of the word. We have seen the feckless performance of the UN for decades. The peacekeeping troops cannot keep the peace and in some cases are criminal in their actions. The security council has brought little security around the world. Human rights councils are run by the greatest offenders at the UN. Even it's human rights and relief organizations are weak and fraught with corruption.

The UN has no teeth. The Russians took the Crimea and look what happened to them at the UN, zippo.

I think we need to reduce it's scope and have it do what is within the realm of reasonability to do. Don't ask me what those things are as I have no idea what they do well. The supporters will toss out the "it could have been much worse without them". Really, is that the best argument to keep it?

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Aug 31 at 2015 8:51 AM

SSG Robert Webster — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:51:01 -0400

The UN needs to be disbanded. No successor. This organization is just like a structure called a "money pit", no matter how much money, time, or effort is expended, it cannot be fixed. It is NGOs outside of the UN that actually appear to work when compared to similar programs run and supported by the UN.

I will use NATO for this example - Both organizations are completely different from each other. They both aim for peace and prosperity, international law and security, and the accomplishment of world peace. Both the organizations work hard to accomplish their goals.

Here is a link to an article that is similar in context - http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Collective-Security-The-decline-of-collective-security.html

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 31 at 2015 11:00 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:00:28 -0400

The UN has become part of the problems it was designed to do away with. Have they helped, yes. But with any attaboy, one negative wipes them out, and they've had more negatives than anything else recently. It's become a worldwide version of our VA with all the headaches to go with it. If it's to stay, it needs a complete overhaul of its mission and scope. It would also need to do away with permanent members of all committees. With most positions in the UN, there is a rotation of the nations. Not so with the security council and all its doing now is making senseless resolutions, or voting against nations just to get a rise out of it's diplomat. We have ambassadors to countries we deal with or are recognized and to me they'd be a more direct way of dealing with an issue over having a UN "resolution" that could take months to convene and vote on. Everything the UN does could be handled through diplomats to a particular country.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 12:11 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:11:46 -0400

For less than the cost of one F-35, we seem to get a pretty decent return.

[Note: Statistical information on uniformed personnel is as of 30 June 2015 as statistical information on civilian staff is as of 30 June 2015, unless otherwise specified]
•Peacekeeping operations since 1948: 71
•Current peacekeeping operations: 16

Personnel
•Uniformed personnel: 105,394 (as of 30 June 2015)
◦Troops: 90,556
◦Police: 13,095
◦Military observers: 1,743
• Civilian personnel: 16,791 (as of 31 June 2015)
◦International: 5,315
◦Local: 11,476
•UN Volunteers: 1,760 (as of 30 June 2015)
•Total number of personnel serving in 16 peacekeeping operations: 123,945
•Countries contributing uniformed personnel: 122
•Total fatalities in current operations: 1,598
•Total fatalities in all peace operations since 1948: 3,372

Financial aspects
•Approved resources for the period from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015: about $8.47 billion
•Outstanding contributions to peacekeeping (30 June 2015): about $4.80 billion

Current operations

United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)

In Western Sahara since April 1991
Strength: 468 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 197
◦Troops: 26
◦Military observers: 178
◦Police: 6
•Civilian personnel: 246
◦International civilians: 84
◦Local civilians: 162
•UN Volunteers: 12

Fatalities: 15

Approved budget (07/2014– 06/2015): $55,990,080
[A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]

United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)

In the Central African Republic since April 2014
Strength: 11,563 total, including:
• Uniformed personnel: 10,806
◦Troops: 9,110
◦Military observers: 144
◦Police: 1,552
•Civilian personnel: 681
◦International civilians: 462
◦Local civilians: 219
•UN Volunteers: 76

Fatalities: 2

Approved budget (07/2014– 06/2015): $628,724,400 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]

United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)

In Mali since April 2013
Strength: 11,591 total, including:
• Uniformed personnel: 10,207
◦Troops: 9,149
◦Military observers: 0
◦Police: 1,058
•Civilian personnel: 1,260
◦International civilians: 578
◦Local civilians: 682
•UN Volunteers: 124

Fatalities: 56
Approved budget: (07/2014– 06/2015): $830,701,700 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]
United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)

In Haiti since June 2004
Strength: 6,156 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 4,557
◦Troops: 2,338
◦Police: 2,239
•Civilian personnel: 1,451
◦International civilians: 317
◦Local civilians: 1,134
•UN Volunteers: 128

Fatalities: 181

Approved budget (07/2014 – 06/2015): $500,080,500 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]

United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO)

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo since July 2010
Strength: 23,799 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 19,784
◦Troops: 18,232
◦Military observers: 462
◦Police: 1,090
•Civilian personnel: 3,565
◦International civilians: 840
◦Local civilians: 2,725
•UN Volunteers: 450

Fatalities: 93

Approved budget (07/2014 – 06/2015): $1,398,475,300 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]

African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID)

In Darfur since July 2007
Strength: 21,333 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 17,754
◦Troops: 14,413
◦Military observers: 172
◦Police: 3,169
•Civilian personnel: 3,410
◦International civilians: 845
◦Local civilians: 2,565
•UN Volunteers: 169

Fatalities: 218

Approved budget (07/2014 – 06/2015): $1,153,611,300 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]

United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)

In Syria since June 1974
Strength: 947 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 789
◦Troops: 789
•Civilian personnel: 158
◦International civilians: 53
◦Local civilians: 105

Fatalities: 46
Approved budget (07/2014 – 06/2015): $64,110,900 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]
United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)

In Cyprus since March 1964
Strength: 1,071 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 920
◦Troops: 858
◦Police: 62
•Civilian personnel: 151
◦International civilians: 37
◦Local civilians: 114

Fatalities: 183

Approved budget (07/2014 – 06/2015): $59,072,800 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]

United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)

In Lebanon since March 1978
Strength: 11,279 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 10,410
◦Troops: 10,410
•Civilian personnel: 869
◦International civilians: 279
◦Local civilians: 590

Fatalities: 308
Approved budget (07/2014 – 06/2015): $509,554,400 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]
United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA)

In Abyei, Sudan since June 2011
Strength: 4,588 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 4,366
◦Troops: 4,222
◦Military observers: 116
◦Police: 28
•Civilian personnel: 195
◦International civilians: 130
◦Local civilians: 65
•UN Volunteers: 27

Fatalities: 19
Approved budget (07/2014 – 06/2015): $318,925,200 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]
United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS)

In South Sudan since July 2011
Strength: 14,905 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 12,523
◦Troops: 11,350
◦Military observers: 179
◦Police: 994
•Civilian personnel: 1,973
◦International civilians: 769
◦Local civilians: 1,204
•UN Volunteers: 409

Fatalities: 36
Approved budget(07/2014 – 06/2015): $1,097,315,100 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]
United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)

In Côte d'Ivoire since April 2004
Strength: 8,058 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 6,913
◦Troops: 5,259
◦Military observers: 174
◦Police: 1,480
•Civilian personnel: 992
◦International civilians: 317
◦Local civilians: 675
•UN Volunteers: 153

Fatalities: 135
Approved budget (07/2014 - 06/2015): $493,570,300 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]
United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)

In Kosovo since June 1999
Strength: 372 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 16
◦Military observers: 8
◦Police: 8
•Civilian personnel: 329
◦International civilians: 109
◦Local civilians: 220
•UN Volunteers: 27

Fatalities: 55
Approved budget (07/2014 – 06/2015): $42,971,600 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]
United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL)

In Liberia since September 2003
Strength: 7,323 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 5,934
◦Troops: 4,400
◦Military observers: 125
◦Police: 1,409
•Civilian personnel: 1,204
◦International civilians: 381
◦Local civilians: 823
•UN Volunteers: 185

Fatalities: 190
Approved budget (07/2014 – 06/2015): $427,319,800 [A/C.5/69/17 PDF Document]
United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)

In India and Pakistan since January 1949
Strength: 115 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 43
◦Military observers: 43
•Civilian personnel: 72
◦International civilians: 25
◦Local civilians: 47

Fatalities: 11

Appropriation (biennium 2014-2015): $19,647,100

United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO)

In Middle East since May 1948
Strength: 377 total, including:
•Uniformed personnel: 142
◦Military observers: 142
•Civilian personnel: 235
◦International civilians: 89
◦Local civilians: 146

Fatalities: 50

Appropriation (biennium 2014 - 2015): $74,291,900

Response by PFC Robert Falk made Aug 31 at 2015 12:36 PM

PFC Robert Falk — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:36:46 -0400

I don't like the idea of 1 body of people saying how the entire planet lives and such. the U.N. just needs to worry about helping in the natural disasters and leave everything else alone.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 31 at 2015 1:18 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:18:17 -0400

The UN does not need more power but manage the power it already has.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Aug 31 at 2015 1:57 PM

SFC Joseph Weber — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:57:06 -0400

Your question assumes that it once was useful.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Aug 31 at 2015 10:45 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:45:54 -0400

How can it do something it never was.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 12:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:03:18 -0400

It is a den of high corruption, funded hugely by the American citizen.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Sep 1 at 2015 3:58 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:58:58 -0400

The UN is like a toothless old dog, it can bark sometimes but it cannot do much more.
The UN is becoming more of a sham because of its lack of action and lack of decision making. You cannot always go to committee on every single process.
The UN should be dissolved unless they can actually take a leadership role in world politics and be a force to be reckoned with. I seriously doubt that any nation takes the UN seriously.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Sep 1 at 2015 6:18 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 18:18:25 -0400

Can we move it to Switzerland?

Response by 1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr made Sep 1 at 2015 8:22 PM

1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 20:22:33 -0400

When I was in grade school I asked my grandfather what the purpose of the United Nations. He told me that it was an organization that allowed grown men and women play God. I was established to keep us from having another World War. But it has been bastardized to the point where it is nothing more than a pathway for a world government. We need to get this organization out of the United States. We need to cut off all funding for its support. We need to move all these so called diplomats back to where they belong. Most of them are spies anyway. They solve no world issues. They in fact more often then not make them worse. They have not business trying to disarm American citizens or trying to make laws that will be governed by them. So in my humble estimation dismantle this institutions immediately.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 10:02 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:02:45 -0400

Simply put, I think the United Nations has merit and should be retooled to provided the type of support and peace keeping operations that it was intended to provide. Without power instilled in such and organization we are bound to repeat the mistakes, conflicts, and turmoil of our past. Globalization has brought about major changes across the world and we need a forum or organization like the United Nations to try to come together on a larger scale.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Sep 1 at 2015 10:15 PM

SGT Scott Bell — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:15:49 -0400

yes

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Sep 1 at 2015 10:40 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:40:32 -0400

I'm tempted to respond "When has the UN ever been useful?" However, to be fair, some UN agencies have done some good in the world especially those that have helped developing nations address health and welfare issues. Basically, they are a bureaucracy that helps prop up failing bureaucracies in countries that haven't yet mastered the bureaucratic methodology. Beyond that, the UN has never promoted peace, not really, has it? Member nations wherein human rights are violated every day in every way are appointed to head up human rights panels. The same with women's rights and other popular issues. Would the world be a better place if it were abandoned? No. But I don't think it would be any the worse either. At least the tyrants of the world would have to find another forum to damn US and Israel...

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2017 6:09 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:09:23 -0400

Well ok you can speak ill of the U.N. and what not but I have to ask this what's your proposal for a replacement. It's got to be replaced by something and if your going to talk big you better have a clearly superior idea otherwise it's just talk.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Sep 19 at 2017 11:26 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:26:29 -0400

Reorganizing might help them.

Response by LTC Jesse Edwards made Sep 19 at 2017 12:10 PM

LTC Jesse Edwards — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:10:58 -0400

No more power to the UN without major changes. Their "Human Rights" committee makes a mockery of human rights for example. The US pays 20-25% of the UN bills. We either get that much control or we pay substantially less. The UN hasn't been completely ineffectual. I don't want it to become more competent though because I think they'll use the power to do great harm to freedom.

Response by SGT Michael Thorin made Sep 19 at 2017 12:16 PM

SGT Michael Thorin — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:16:07 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs, I have to echo Capt Seid Waddell's sentiments.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2017 12:32 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:32:51 -0400

The UN what a disgrace and waste of space. How many human rights violators are on the human rights council? How much money do we dump in and support them with only to have them be Anti America. I have friends with personal experience with the UN None have anything positive to say. Disband them and kick them out of the US. ... Ohh and make them pay their fines first.

Here is how they treat their own people. (They made this in to a movie too)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville

Siege of Jadotville - Wikipedia

The Siege of Jadotville took place in September 1961, during the United Nations intervention in the Katanga conflict in Congo-Léopoldville, in Central Africa. "A" Company, 35th Battalion (UN service) of the Irish Army ONUC contingent was attacked by Katanga Gendarmerie troops loyal to the Katangese Prime Minister Moise Tshombe. The lightly armed Irish soldiers, besieged in Jadotville (modern Likasi), resisted Katangese assaults for six days as...

Response by SPC Louis Miller made Sep 19 at 2017 12:42 PM

SPC Louis Miller — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:42:03 -0400

There has been much debate on the functionality of this organization. In terms of its ability from past to present, there is STILL a major issue that continually is devoid of action and correction. That issue is of the organization continuously functioning (each and every sector of it) as segments that need to be unilateral and not be obliged to the charters and/or multitudes of processes that formed it in the first place.

Reorganization is a must. Dismantling will not solve the evolving conflicts that are tantamount to ending civilization. Effectuating the changes needed are processes that have been continuous and ongoing since the Koren War. In the view of its role, all who have bore witness to any functionality have seen it (UN) only be effective in times of multiple country large scale conflict and its purpose was to inhibit that in the first place. Again, higher level administrative research for resolve is in need if the organization is to be an actual forum of world change. Inasmuch, all viewpoints in these threads are valid. Moreover, the concern I have is who will have them go to the "next level" and get forwarded for proper representation of viewing in promoting the change? As my father would say, "Talk is cheap."

Be encouraged

Response by LTC Orlando Illi made Sep 19 at 2017 1:50 PM

LTC Orlando Illi — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:50:22 -0400

The UN is a club for the diplomatic corps to engage in self grandizment while ignoring the fact that it is outlived its usefulness. It accomplishs nothing while wasting Billions.

Response by SGT Tim Fridley made Sep 19 at 2017 3:31 PM

SGT Tim Fridley — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:31:51 -0400

My point of view is that we should at least cut back on our funding of it until it's mission is returned to what it was designed to do and also move it from our country where they have turned it into a vacation destination instead of actually getting any work done ( put it in Europe or the Middle East somewhere).

Response by SFC Dave Beran made Sep 19 at 2017 3:36 PM

SFC Dave Beran — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:36:34 -0400

Disbanned. All the IDs sent home.

Response by PO1 Ron Clark made Sep 19 at 2017 3:46 PM

PO1 Ron Clark — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:46:09 -0400

I think we still need the UN! To me the UN is the same as the rules of navigation at sea. The countries got together to establish rules of the road for vessels traversing the sea, so people transiting the sea would have traffic rules at sea to be adhered to. Can member countries beef up their responses to crises, humanitarian, domestic or global, the answer is yes. Can member countries pony up their part of expenses to be a member country, sure, especially if it is a prosperous country. Can member countries do more to police and address the corruption which some folk appear to think exist, the answer to this is yes also. Members of the UN can reform the UN but not get rid of it and go back to ways that we know do not benefit the world community.

Response by SCPO Morris Ramsey made Sep 19 at 2017 3:50 PM

SCPO Morris Ramsey — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:50:00 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs according to John Birch. We should have been out a long time ago.

Response by PO3 John Wagner made Sep 19 at 2017 4:00 PM

PO3 John Wagner — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:00:40 -0400

I don't know how the world would take to that.
While the UN has definitely become a somewhat dated organization it does still provide a forum for all recognized governments to meet. All organized governments must absolutely be able to communicate with each other in some forum.
The G6 and G8 and G20 take care of much business between al the large players and is very effective at allowing a far more organized cooperation without all the relatively small players getting in at the poker table.
The UN is what it is.
As to wether any major accomplishments are achieved there I haven't the knowledge to comment.
Mostly a "public" forum as these things go.
Diplomats can do formal and important business there which is definitely very important.
Sort of a world service center for working out smaller affairs.
In that way it is more effective than the large summits which are publically politicized.
The nuts and bolts department might be a better name for the UN

Just happened to have the album with a few UN items near to hand.
Not sure if the other commemorative sheets were celebrating political affiliations or moments.
They certainly predate the UN....(and I don't read Cyrillic)

Response by SPC Brian Stephens made Sep 19 at 2017 4:17 PM

SPC Brian Stephens — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:17:44 -0400

If the UN's mandate is as Senator Dianne Feinstein said today to prevent wars, then hasn't it done suuuuuuuuuuuch a "GOOD JOB!" since its founding in the 1940s? What wars have they stopped? Communist aggression in the Balkans? Burma? The Red Chinese Revolution? The Korean War? Vietnam? Cuba? Chile? The war in Afghanistan? Iraq-Iran War? Persian Gulf War? Soviet expansion? Syria?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2017 4:26 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:26:59 -0400

I can't tell you what I know, I can only tell you what I think or feel. I know the history of the creation of the UN, it's Charter and what it's supposed to do, but I see no results. The only serious accomplishment I've seen is our tax dollars going in and nothing substantial coming out. My opinion thusly is to dismantle the UN and go back to the League of Nations format.

Response by Sgt John H. made Sep 19 at 2017 4:37 PM

Sgt John H. — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:37:49 -0400

From all appearances, the United Nations has evolved into a self serving corrupt entity. It seems intent on the pushing socialist ideas onto the people of the world and buying into redistribution of wealth and a world without borders....
I think it is a waste of time and certainly money.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Sep 19 at 2017 4:57 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:57:07 -0400

In the case of Korea the UN is a Belligerent. The UN actually passed a resolution to drive the North from the south. That is why it is referred to as a Police Action. There have been other Police Actions around the world since then, but not normally involving anyone with a VETO.

Response by 1SG James Matthews made Sep 19 at 2017 5:11 PM

1SG James Matthews — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:11:16 -0400

Re-organized and set up so that anyone does not pay what it owes has no vote or speaking privilege until it becomes current.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2017 5:13 PM

Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:13:15 -0400

In my humble opinion, the un has Never met the mandate of its Charter ! It has continually Violated its own charter ! It has done so since its inception ! It has continually overstepped its authority & continues in these efforts. It has exacerbated many problems Worldwide, such as HUMAN/SLAVE/SEX /DRUG Trafficking ! It is Now past time to Disband the un & CRIMINALIZE its officers! The United States of America Must rescind EVERY diplomatic passport of its members & give its members 10 days to flee America on pain of Death for Non-compliance !!! HOOORAH !!!

Response by 1stSgt Nelson Kerr made Sep 19 at 2017 5:42 PM

1stSgt Nelson Kerr — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:42:43 -0400

What is the point, as long as nation can Veto any real action it is pretty much a waste of time as far as any action goes. Only a misstep by the USSR allowed it to act in Korea

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Sep 19 at 2017 6:15 PM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:15:14 -0400

Give the UN 30 days notice to vacate and go back home, day 30 move three empty barges, largest we have to the east river, load up any remaining holdouts along with their crap. Have the entire fleet of the the NYC traffic agent tow trucks remove all diplomatic plated vehicles to the crush yard occupants extra credit. Hire the best/fastest demo company available and drop all structures into rubble and remove, erase all evidence that the UN was there and build new homes/businesses etc using the yearly budget we would have paid for the UN sitting on their ass in the US Shopping mall.
Move all the delegates to Somalia the new UN HQ by barge or cheapest air transport, hell put parachutes on them and do a mass tac no red light. Set up a dozen old Vietnam War era GP mediums and paint UN on them and then leave. Let them sit there as they are killed and robbed by the folks they said they are their to help. The UN and the League of Nations were and are monumental wastes of resources, the truly sad thing is we are supplying money to them to work against this nation. I WANT THEM GONE YESTERDAY.

Response by CPO Charles Helms made Sep 19 at 2017 6:29 PM

CPO Charles Helms — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:29:57 -0400

Senator Barry Goldwater said in 1958 I believe that the UN had outlived it's use fullness then!! It should be dismantled and the building turned into a place for homeless veterans in the NYC are to go and live!!

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Sep 19 at 2017 6:35 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:35:44 -0400

I think it has died. More 3rd World countries are in control, and they vote for each other. Nations are appointed to be the heads of committee's yet they are the worst of the offenders that the committee's are suppose to watch over. Look at how slow they are to act as peacekeepers, and when they do, they refuse to enforce anything against anybody. UN Gets billions of dollars, pays lush salaries and does damn near nothing in return. They have not stopped tribal genocide in Africa, millions are still starving, refugee camp overflow, thousands die trying to flee to safer countries and the UN still sits on it's ass.

Response by SSG David Andrews made Sep 19 at 2017 7:21 PM

SSG David Andrews — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 19:21:20 -0400

Colonel, this is a tough one to answer. The United Nations has been around most of my lifetime. I believe that it did work in the early years. Since the early years, I am afraid that it has become unwieldy due to its' sheer size and due to becoming much less than transparent. I believe that it is filled with a group of nations that only like our handouts and then curse us after receiving their handout. We certainly need an organization that can and will do the job that the UN should be doing. I am afraid that it would be better to dismantle it and start over again. At any rate, a reformed organization should function on a fair basis of dues and payments. The United States should not be relied upon to kick in the "lion's share" of operating costs as it has done in recent years. These are my "off the cuff" thoughts. I would certainly like to read the thoughts of others on this site.

Response by Sgt Daniel Martin made Sep 19 at 2017 7:26 PM

Sgt Daniel Martin — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 19:26:31 -0400

I am with Capt Seid Waddell.

Response by Sgt Martin Querin made Sep 19 at 2017 7:58 PM

Sgt Martin Querin — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 19:58:09 -0400

Most of the member countries do not adhere to the rule of law, they are corrupt internally and somehow we expect them to behave differently externally. They are a product of their culture. Anybody that gets angry for sharks eating seals is an idiot, it's what sharks do. Asking these nations to act differently than who they are as a product of their culture is like hoping sharks will stop eating seals. I'm not sure if I would go so far as totally dismantling it, but I sure think we should bear the lion's share of the cost, or let the UN dictate terms as a global geopolitical arbiter.

Response by CSM Andrew Perrault made Sep 19 at 2017 9:15 PM

CSM Andrew Perrault — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:15:45 -0400

Shit can the whole lot......

Response by Sgt Albert Castro made Sep 19 at 2017 9:18 PM

Sgt Albert Castro — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:18:32 -0400

The United Nations definitely needs to be reorganized. We (U.S.) need to make clear by word and deed that we will not abide by votes in the United Nations. Such as being obliged by ridicules treaties like The Small Arms Treaty and The Paris Climate Accord. The U.S. provides 22% of the U.N.'s budget. It is time for all other nations to meet the financial support they committed to providing when they were admitted into the U.N.

Response by MSgt Ronnie Kelly made Sep 19 at 2017 10:17 PM

MSgt Ronnie Kelly — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 22:17:45 -0400

Too political and too corrupted, needs to go back and fix itself.

Response by Dennis Aubuchon made Sep 19 at 2017 10:19 PM

Dennis Aubuchon — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 22:19:08 -0400

I agree the UN has lost its value as an organization and needs to be more receptive to the problems in the world. Part of the problem has been that it is an organization that wants to be in charge of the world through its organization and thereby countries would lose their sovereignty. In addition the problem has been that many decisions do not carry the weight they should unless countries agree to take action or support them.

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Sep 19 at 2017 11:29 PM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 23:29:58 -0400

While the principles and motives were good and noble, the levels of corruption and inefficiency have now rendered it useless. It has fallen far short of it's original intent, and given the degree of corruption existing within it's structure, it belongs on the dung heap with the rest of the waste.

Response by SSG Michael Eastes made Sep 20 at 2017 1:30 AM

SSG Michael Eastes — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 01:30:12 -0400

Why continue to host and fund an organization made up of nations which, to a large degree, stand in opposition to our national interests? If they truly were effective at any of the tasks they take on, that would be different, but they seem to be corrupt to the core. Let them move elsewhere. I'm sure that the ground that they currently occupy could be put to better use.

Response by SSgt James Tadlock made Sep 20 at 2017 10:07 AM

SSgt James Tadlock — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:07:41 -0400

I vote with the Captain. This dog won't hunt.

Response by SPC Brett Curry made Sep 20 at 2017 10:50 AM

SPC Brett Curry — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:50:43 -0400

I don't think that we should give up on the United Nations. I do think that it's needs to be reviewed and some changes made. But leaving the United Nations wld leave way to many countries out there with protective security that the UN provides. We said, don't worry, there's no need for you to arm yourself with nukes and build up giant militaries because if anything happens we will be there for you. To just back out of that wld have great repercussions to smaller countries and the free world as a whole..

Response by MSG Mark Million made Sep 20 at 2017 12:05 PM

MSG Mark Million — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:05:44 -0400

Thought the sanctions and monitoring to help maintain world peace through the U.N. may not be the most effective tool, it is still something that I feel the world needs. I believe it could benefit from some reorganization though.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2017 1:00 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:00:21 -0400

President Trump was correct to state that the UN has not lived up to its potential. It is a bloated bureaucracy and gives places like Saudi Arabia and Cuba seats on the human rights/women's rights committees.

Response by SPC Douglas Bolton made Sep 20 at 2017 3:57 PM

SPC Douglas Bolton — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:57:00 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs It has got to change. They allow a couple big countries to veto everything.

Response by PO3 Steve Bagley made Sep 20 at 2017 7:21 PM

PO3 Steve Bagley — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:21:39 -0400

So many good informed comments, I guess that comes from people with a military background . As for me I believe the UN has lost it's way . And it's past time to get out . How can you fix the U.N. when the majority , do not believe in America's form of government ?

Response by SSgt Jimmy Jackson made Sep 20 at 2017 9:42 PM

SSgt Jimmy Jackson — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:42:36 -0400

Money pit. Ineffective, Does anyone really respect their sanctions?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2017 3:49 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 03:49:29 -0400

Good read to ponder on!

Response by SGT Gregory Yelland made Sep 25 at 2017 7:03 PM

SGT Gregory Yelland — Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:03:47 -0400

I think it needs to be revamped, ALL nations should be included and it should be run under the democratic process. Yes, that would make it a WORLD government, however I don't believe any one nation has the right to interfere in how other nations govern themselves. As an example: I don't believe we had the right to attack and remove Hussain. Sure, he was using chemical weapons ON HIS OWN PEOPLE, and yes he was 'playing' with the inspection teams, and yes his using Hammurabic Law was extreme punishment (by our standards), but that was the law of HIS country. WE had no right to object. However, a consensus by the United Nations and decision by them to take action would have been more appropriate as one of their concerns should be the rights of ALL people of ALL nations. Other nation vs other nation situations; Viet Nam for example should have been a U.N. action, not a U.S one, Human Rights in other countries would be addressed by the U.S thru the U.N not around them and yes that would mean we would attach military forces to the U.N Personally, I would disband NATO and combine them with the U.N. I also think the U.S. Military needs be concerned with defending the U.S and it's citizens ONLY.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Oct 14 at 2017 5:47 AM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Sat, 14 Oct 2017 05:47:21 -0400

It definitely needs some reorganizing.. too many despot type nations in-charge of a certain Council because it seems when the U..Went in to do s’thing w/o going through them they wanted to penalize our country even tough what we did turned out good( a reason why they wanted to penalize us a certain NGO (hamas?, maybe) took a big loss of it’s ‘agents’ more like goons.. that’s just one sit-rep, another one was when those somalies
Took that ship (Mersk,Alabama)and our S.E.A.L.S. Made hamburger of them.. “we didn’t follow Proper diplomatic ritual”. There was no time to play silly put the right block in the right slot game, Our S.E.A.L.S. Had to get there .. as in ‘NOW!’
All they wanted was so those Somali pirates could capture the M-A ship and make Mersk and the U.S. Pay a humongous ransom. It’s gotten to be old hat.. that council needs busting up, or we’ll be paying ransoms forever... We can’t pull out because we have to stay in to keep an eye on what’s going on so they
Can’t go run roughshod over us and slap us around like a unloved step-child..

Response by PO3 J.W. Nelson made Oct 14 at 2017 10:03 AM

PO3 J.W. Nelson — Sat, 14 Oct 2017 10:03:23 -0400

The current structure of the UN is definitely in severe need of re-structuring, and it's leadership needs to either go off the trend of siding with terrorists nations or they need to be replaced, period !!

Response by MSG Louis Alexander made Feb 15 at 2018 8:06 PM

MSG Louis Alexander — Thu, 15 Feb 2018 20:06:56 -0500

As in any political environment the primary concern is overall power. Unlike their original humble beginnings of working towards promoting international cooperation as a unified entity to prevent global war, sickness and acts of inhumanity, they have evolved into a global network of self-righteous, socialistic, progressive, liberal idealists whose only ambition to build personal wealth and prestige at the expense of the global community. Take for instance the Woman’s rights council of the United Nations. Leading the counsel is an Islamic nation (Saudi Arabia) notorious for suppressing the same rights they are suppose to upholding. Or the political posturing of invading the sovereignty of independent Constitutional countries in order to bring them one step closer to globalization controlled by the UN. Case in point: In February 2013, Barack Obama without coordinating with the U.S. Congress, and acting on his on behalf, made a commitment with the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) announcing the creation of a “Civilian Weapons Confiscation Study Group” (CWCSG) intended to foster the goal of facilitating the passage of “National Laws” in member nations to “Disarm Civilians”. Barack Obama enrolled the United States in this program as a member nation without Congressional approval. This pact unknown to the American people, has been quietly recruiting United Nations Disarmament Officer’s (UNDO), to occupy American cities and towns which Obama designated as uncontrollable areas and has ignored the U.S. Constitution and the 4th Amendment and looked upon it as a minor infraction, authorizing the United Nations to eventually occupy heavily populated cities such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Miami etc. and to forcefully if necessary, begin confiscating civilian weapons. The undermining of a nations sovereignty and constitutional declaration is irrelevant to the UN’s quest of global control. So, can the United Nations once again become the intergovernmental organization to promote international cooperation?

Response by MSG John Duchesneau made Feb 15 at 2018 9:20 PM

MSG John Duchesneau — Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:20:19 -0500

The UN is good for what it is good for and not good for anything else.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Feb 15 at 2018 10:11 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:11:24 -0500

OK with me, it tries