Article

2006-06-17 Fifth Column

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by FOTSGreg 2006-06-17 15:54|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 So that would let the UN Sec-Gen work unilaterally to stop genocides, eh? The rest of the UN functionaries would still get to argue, hem and haw about what is a genocide, though, right?

Posted by eLarson 2006-06-17 18:57|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2006-06-17 18:57|| Front Page Top

#2 so we could pay for an army, not our own, to possibly be used in the US? Youse guys are learning from the Islamists eh?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-17 18:59|| 2006-06-17 18:59|| Front Page Top

#3 Pity the members of this force if it is deployed against the interests of a veto wielding UN security council member with military muscle (or the militarily powerful ally of one)

Their transport ships get sunk, planes get shot down and cruise missiles with fragmentation and thermobaric warheads decimate their camps.

Then a UN veto loses the chapter on this little exercise. The UN army licks its wounds, buries its dead and goes home.

There are good reasons why the powerful nations that won WW2 (I don't include France here) had a veto in the UNSC. Actions taken against their interests would lead to war.

Posted by john 2006-06-17 19:49|| 2006-06-17 19:49|| Front Page Top

#4 This is surreal. Two billion for start-up, with 900 million per year support. At least a quarter of that will be skimmed off.

Where is the UN going to get airlift?

Given their previous "successes", like the earthquake, their logistics are going to be interesting.

Posted by Fordesque 2006-06-17 20:15|| 2006-06-17 20:15|| Front Page Top

#5 Where is the UN going to get airlift?

Buy Airbus transports?

Posted by john 2006-06-17 20:30|| 2006-06-17 20:30|| Front Page Top

#6 Small armies may be a wave of the future. I have long thought that the English monarch could afford a light "Excalibur" Division, kept in a discreet location offshore and totally loyal to the monarch, just in case something bad happened and there was no loyal British army left.

Major corporations could field permanent battalions and even "reserve-style" brigades to protect their interests in some fourth-world hell hole. Even subcontracting them for profit to other corporations and countries that have no serious military but are otherwise friendly.

Think Blackwater with a parent company of Exxon. With free enterprise involved, they could be some of the best light units around.

This idea of private armies has been around for 40 years. Odd that it hasn't caught on in a big way yet.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-06-17 20:30|| 2006-06-17 20:30|| Front Page Top

#7 Think neighborhoods with their own light armored platoons backed up S&H brand infantry. Get ready, the world is coming to your neighborhood.

Posted by 6 2006-06-17 21:08|| 2006-06-17 21:08|| Front Page Top

#8 BTW the idea of private armies has been not for 40 years but for.... damn! 57 years. Prior to that most armies were carried by state subsidy.

Posted by 6 2006-06-17 21:10|| 2006-06-17 21:10|| Front Page Top

#9 Think, armies that you pay each month, like the cable bill, to keep you alive, from the thousands and thousands of tiny little angry meat eating robots.

Side to 11Afs yeah, Ima kinda of a wet blanket at dream sessions. And yeah Toflver was made some bucks.

Posted by 6 2006-06-17 21:15|| 2006-06-17 21:15|| Front Page Top

#10 I wouldn't say wet blanket, but it is getting tired. If you don't want to contribute then the polite thing is to move on. It's a drag that innovation and technology messes with your head, but if it bugs you, please keep it to yourself.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-06-17 22:40|| 2006-06-17 22:40|| Front Page Top

#11 If Kofi wants a private army, he should talk to the Vatican about the Swiss guards. Anything beyond that, particularly a UN force answerable only to the Secretary General is a really bad idea. Hopefully this will die aborning.

Posted by RWV 2006-06-17 22:52|| 2006-06-17 22:52|| Front Page Top

#12 Next come private wars. Exxon v. France's Elf/whatchamacallum. Goody. Kofi proved in Rwanda that he isn't to be trusted with soldiers, in Oil for Food that he isn't to be trusted with finance, and as SecGen that he isn't to be trusted with the bureaucracy of the UN. There isn't a great deal left, as far as I can see.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-17 23:01|| 2006-06-17 23:01|| Front Page Top

#13 "Next come private wars."

And then... Rollerball!

Go Houston!

Posted by Jeanter Pharong3307 2006-06-17 23:03|| 2006-06-17 23:03|| Front Page Top

23:43 J Hood
23:34 Skidmark
23:33 grb
23:31 grb
23:29 grb
23:23 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:13 J Hood
23:13 49 Pan
23:12 J Hood
23:06 trailing wife
23:03 Jeanter Pharong3307
23:01 trailing wife
23:00 JosephMendiola
22:59 grb
22:57 RWV
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:52 RWV
22:49 grb
22:45 Desert Blondie
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:43 Desert Blondie
22:40 Anonymoose
22:36 Shieldwolf
22:33 Shieldwolf