US push for global police force

feeds.bignewsnetwork.com ^

[chance33_98]

US push for global police force

By Esther Schrader of the Los Angeles Times and Tom Allard June 28 2003

The United States would train and lead an international police force, bypassing traditional peacekeeping bodies such as the United Nations and NATO, under a proposal by the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

The plan, involving thousands of Americans permanently assigned to peacekeeping, would also be a major reversal by the Bush Administration, which has strongly opposed tying up its troops in such operations.

"I am interested in the idea of our leading, or contributing to in some way, a cadre of people in the world who would like to participate in peacekeeping or peacemaking," Mr Rumsfeld told defence industry leaders in Washington last week.

"I think that it would be a good thing if our country provided some leadership for training of other countries' citizens who would like to participate in peacekeeping ... so that we have a ready cadre of people who are trained and equipped and organised and have communications that they can work with each other."

[chance33_98]

Just noticed those sick freaks at LA times contributed to the article, may need excerpted, but my source was Big News Network.

[Admin Moderator]

Thanks for letting us know.

[ysoitanly]

This better be the trash I think it is.

[OREALLY]

Bump

[ejdrapes]

This is what Rummy said in a recent press conference:

Q: The Los Angeles Times is reporting that there's discussion of setting up a standing U.S. peacekeeping force. Could you comment on that?

Rumsfeld: Oh, there have been discussions, although it wouldn't be U.S. peacekeeping. There have been discussions about that for, oh, goodness, a couple of years, and I know that there was a story about it recently. But there have been no specific proposals put forward.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Thanks for the clarification... we do not need to form an international group of storm troopers that will alternately be controlled by different UN member nations. The French send us here, the British send us there, etc. If we can't agree on WMD in the UN, how could we ever agree on where to send the forces?

[Gabrielle Reilly]

You know they have been on a great push to get other countries to send troops to help rebuild Iraq with little response. It may be a smart international move to call it "peacekeeping" to get more countries to sign up and save US alot of lives and money.

In fact, I wrote an article today about world police and global perspective you may be interested in.

http://www.gabriellereillyweekly.com/full/st062703.htm

[Willie Green]

The United States would train and lead an international police force, bypassing traditional peacekeeping bodies such as the United Nations and NATO, under a proposal by the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

Oh that's just wunnerful. </sarcasm>

So who are the Global Gestapo supposed to report to?
The World Trade Organization perhaps?

[ysoitanly]

Thanks much for the clarification. Now that I believe the report is accurate; it's the tactic that's bull$hit. What are we thinking? If I were a young person of military service age right now and I was thinking of joining up to serve MY COUNTRY and heard this, I would run, not walk, from the recruitment center. Can you imagine signing up to stand guard in a hell-forsaken country under the auspices of the UN? Am I missing something here? And BTW, can Rumsfeld answer a question straight - not like Dr. Seuss, just once, when pressed on an issue he doesn't like? Our troops are being picked off daily, and when pressed, he says 'well, we are suffering scattered attacks.' 'It's 'messy'. If it were his son or daughter, it wouldn't be called 'MESSY'!!!!

[Gabrielle Reilly]

Yes I think you may be missing the tactic...

You know they have been on a great push to get other countries to send troops to help rebuild Iraq with little response. It may be a smart international move to call it "peacekeeping" to get more countries to sign up and save US alot of lives and money. We do not have enough troops and Rumsfeld unquestionably knows that. This is more about recruitment for international support and also a peaceful way to get the world to reevalute the UN's ineffective roll...

[ysoitanly]

OK, fair enough - then why are we now being asked by the UN to consider participation in the Congo, too? To be a peacekeeping force, you have to have the one operative word: force. Who has that? The guys in the blue helmets don't seem to have made a dent in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda -or anywhere else I can think of where they've been deployed. The world can't have it both ways. The UN has to quit calling us the bullying superpower imperialists and then run to us when everyone else seems to be impotent and there are no other options. We can't spread ourselves around the world forever, and it's obvious that other countries give great lip service, but no cash, and no effective enforcement.

[meenie]

If we keep working at it, we can furnish all the peacekeeping in the world. Rummy is ambitious and sees himself as world police chief. The cat was out of the bag when he said it had been discussed. Bush just got done telling African leaders that we should go over there and straigten out Liberia, Zimbabwe, and the Congo so we can give then more aid so they can establish a free trade zone. I just love these psuedo-Americans and their plans for world leadership.

[ysoitanly]

Yep, just keep pumping up the deficit into solving the world's problems. If that doesn't work, open the borders wider (if that's possible) and take everyone who feels oppressed in and buy them a Coke. They'll all 'like us' someday. Really.

[grapeape]

I disagree with all of this. We are supposed to be scaling down the UN drastically. It should be reduced to a debating organization only. That's right not even so-called aid.

Human beings just aren't ready for these big global projects and EVERYONE is going to have to realize that. The only thing that the Bush administration needs to be concerned with now is it's "over-flowing plate" of goddies already.

[Gabrielle Reilly]

>>>>>>OK, fair enough - then why are we now being asked by the UN to consider participation in the Congo, too? To be a peacekeeping force, you have to have the one operative word: force.>>>>>>>>

Once again it is only a play on words to get more countries on our side so we get more support. We had to take drastic measures against terrorism and lost a lot of friends around the world.

They are talking about "force". PM Blair has Sierra Leone in order so trade has recommenced and they are becoming self sufficent. Liberia borders Sierra Leone and much would be lost. When they say "peacekeeping" they send in the army, in Britans case the Royal Gherka's, and use force. Blair use a "over the horizon" quick action military strike that has proved very effective.

Why do we need to try and establish these countries? Certainly not because we want anything to do with them. Globalization has forced us to BEWARE of broken states such as Afghanistan that trained terrorists to run into our buildings, killing our people and having a huge effect on our economy.

Take for example the big picture on Liberia... if Liberia goes, Sierra Leone goes. Prior to Blair going in to Sierra Leone in 2000 the Al Qaida terrorist network were reaping the diamonds from Sierra Leone (which happen to be the best quality diamonds in the world). They used this commodity to pay to train people TO KILL US. The Al Qaida trade opium, drugs, illegal weapons, pursue wmd's in all these lawless country's. If we can regain some control the threat to us will not be nearly so tremendous.

I would say they are once again being wise because they have all the information laid out on the table.

[mark502inf]

Globalization has forced us to BEWARE of broken states such as Afghanistan that trained terrorists to run into our buildings, killing our people and having a huge effect on our economy.

Well said Gabrielle. We can't put the globalization genie back in the bottle--long gone are the days when we could choose to ignore what is going on in some remote corner of the world. "Failed states" that cannot control their borders or police their interiors provide terrorist and criminal bases--we saw it in the Balkans, in the contested areas of Colombia, in Somalia, and now in the Congo. We ignore those problems at our own peril. We can't trust the UN as it currently operates to establish effective control in those areas. And we are not capable of doing it all by ourselves. We cannot allow areas where those who would do us harm are given free rein to organize and plan their attacks, especially as WMD proliferate--and they will. Therefore the idea of a US led standing international force to go in and establish order is very appealing. NATO fulfilled the same function against a different enemy in different circumstances. It's time for a new alliance to fill the same essentially defensive function in a new world.