Pansy Blue Helmet

[Gunny]

This is a question directed primarily at, but not limited to the military former/military personnel on the board.

What do y'all think of a US military person being forced to suit up for the UN against his/her wishes?

IMO, I think it is beyond the bounds of the agreement between an individual and the US gov't service-wise. Yes, we are all subject to following orders, but we also signed a document swearing to defend the US and uphold the Constitution of the US, not the UN Charter.

I personally would have taken issue with being ordered to serve under the UN flag, and am quite happy I never was forced into the position of making a decision regarding this issue.

Just curious as to y'all's opinions.....

 

[Annie]

This is a question directed primarily at, but not limited to the military former/military personnel on the board.

What do y'all think of a US military person being forced to suit up for the UN against his/her wishes?

IMO, I think it is beyond the bounds of the agreement between an individual and the US gov't service-wise. Yes, we are all subject to following orders, but we also signed a document swearing to defend the US and uphold the Constitution of the US, not the UN Charter.

I personally would have taken issue with being ordered to serve under the UN flag, and am quite happy I never was forced into the position of making a decision regarding this issue.

Just curious as to y'all's opinions.....

I thought when US troops were deployed for the UN, they were kept under US military command?

 

[Gunny]

I thought when US troops were deployed for the UN, they were kept under US military command?

Only administratively. Operationally they are required to serve whatever multinational rabbit is pulled out of the hat.

 

[Mr. P]

This is a question directed primarily at, but not limited to the military former/military personnel on the board.

What do y'all think of a US military person being forced to suit up for the UN against his/her wishes?

IMO, I think it is beyond the bounds of the agreement between an individual and the US gov't service-wise. Yes, we are all subject to following orders, but we also signed a document swearing to defend the US and uphold the Constitution of the US, not the UN Charter.

I personally would have taken issue with being ordered to serve under the UN flag, and am quite happy I never was forced into the position of making a decision regarding this issue.

Just curious as to y'all's opinions.....

I agree with you Gunny..I joined the United States Army to serve the UNITED STATES, not the UN.

 

[Annie]

Only administratively. Operationally they are required to serve whatever multinational rabbit is pulled out of the hat.

I would never subject our troops to UN led anything. President shouldn't either.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm seriously considering service after college, but I'd pass it all up if I thought for a second that I'd be required to don some wussy blue hat and take orders from some Euro yellow-belly.

 

[Gunny]

I would never subject our troops to UN led anything. President shouldn't either.

I actually wouldn't subject our nation to UN-led anything, but that's a different subject.

I think serving in a UN military force should be volunteer-only. In my mind, you are taking a person who swore to serve his Nation and forcing him/her to serve another God by just cutting that person orders to UN duty.

In my case, I think I have sufficiently proven my loyalty to this Nation and would go down with the ship before giving an inch of ground in its defense; however, I feel no such loyalty toward the "One World Order Wannabe UN." I'd probably step aside and let it get attacked.

 

[pegwinn]

I was on I&I duty in Oklahoma City back in 1988 and our I&I got orders to the multinational force in Cambodia. Apparently there are two types of orders to UN postings. Individual PCS are classed as Joint Duty and normally reserved for Officers getting a ticket punched. Unit orders are treated as UDP. Remember SPC New from the Army a while back? His cause was just but he got hammered for disobeying American orders if memory serves.

 

[Said1]

I

I think serving in a UN military force should be volunteer-only. In my mind, you are taking a person who swore to serve his Nation and forcing him/her to serve another God by just cutting that person orders to UN duty.
I

I've always thought that. Those whos goals are to protect international human rights etc would be better serving under the UN than their own national armies.

 

[Annie]

I've always thought that. Those whos goals are to protect international human rights etc would be better serving under the UN than their own national armies.

I may be wrong, but I think we are having a 'failure to communicate' here.

 

[Said1]

I may be wrong, but I think we are having a 'failure to communicate' here.

Not really. I understand your point about the UN, and I agree. My point is that an international force who's specific purpose is international peacekeeping should be populated by people who want to do that.

 

[Annie]

Not really. I understand your point about the UN, and I agree. My point is that an internation force whoes specific purpose is international peacekeeping should be populated by people who want to do that.

Ok, then make that voluntary. Just 'being enrolled in the UN' is not a good reason to find our troops under their command. If that is the criteria, then I say out even faster than because of the rapes and money problems.

 

[Said1]

]Ok, then make that voluntary[/B]. Just 'being enrolled in the UN' is not a good reason to find our troops under their command. If that is the criteria, then I say out even faster than because of the rapes and money problems.

That's what I was agreeing with in response to Gunny's post. I wasn't refering to any troops in particular, just the fact that those who would rather be involved in Peace Keeping operations should be able to enlist with the UN directly. Sadly, the UN sucks, but, if this wasn't the case, I think this would be a good idea.

 

[Annie]

That's what I was agreeing with in response to Gunny's post. I wasn't refering to any troops in particular, just the fact that those who would rather be involved in Peace Keeping operations should be able to enlist with the UN directly. Sadly, the UN sucks, but, if this wasn't the case, I think this would be a good idea.

Ok, can go along with, "If only the UN really was a body committed to peace through strength, then we could all get along..."

 

[Said1]

Ok, can go along with, "If only the UN really was a body committed to peace through strength, then we could all get along..."

That's not exactly what I mean. An international peace keeping/military force woudn't be needed if we could all get along.

 

[Annie]

That's not exactly what I mean. An international peace keeping/military force woudn't be needed if we could all get along.

Ah, but if we could 'get along' there would be no need for a UN like organization in the first place.

 

[Said1]

Ah, but if we could 'get along' there would be no need for a UN like organization in the first place.

Ok.

Anyway, I think people wanting to serve in that capacity should be able to by pass the regular military and the UN should keep their hands of national troops.

 

[Annie]

Ok.

Anyway, I think people wanting to serve in that capacity should be able to by pass the regular military and the UN should keep their hands of national troops.

Ok, maybe now I'm getting ya. Folks could 'volunteer' for the UN? That seems fair enough.

 

[archangel]

according to some in here experience is just being a pompas ass.................
all I know is I wore a OD Green helmut...and fought and kicked ass to the best of my ability..... :huh:

 

[Said1]

according to some in here experience is just being a pompas ass.................
all I know is I wore a OD Green helmut...and fought and kicked ass to the best of my ability..... :huh:

Well, what do you think. Should enlistment be seperate?