03USMC said: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.
Charge 7 said: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?
Been awhile since we had a nice UN bashing session, hasn't it?Renegade said:I understand, but what do you guys think of the UN?
godofthunder9010 said: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?
Charge 7 said: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.
Charge 7 said:Thanks AlexKall for the clarification regarding other countries, however, since an American asked the question, I answered it as one.
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
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?
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.. )
abrams said:what is the difference between NATO and the UN and why does the US need all these allies anyway. in 1996 had a force 6 times the size of the UK, the US's biggest ally. correct me if i'm wrong piease reply
Damien435 said: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.
godofthunder9010 said:Been awhile since we had a nice UN bashing session, hasn't it?Renegade said:I understand, but what do you guys think of the UN?
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.