PDA

View Full Version : World News World Police [split thread]



Coyote
09-10--2006, 04:46 PM
[North Korea]

It will probably be used as an excuse for stricter "global policing" by a one-world police-force/army.....WMDs with evidence, if you will....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

It seems if you want to be nuke free these days you've gotta head for Africa, South America or Australia....

Atomik
09-10--2006, 04:49 PM
It will probably be used as an excuse for stricter "global policing" by a one-world police-force/army.....WMDs with evidence, if you will....LOL. They can't even agree on UN sanctions. Not much hope of a world police force! :rolleyes:

Coyote
09-10--2006, 05:03 PM
LOL. They can't even agree on UN sanctions. Not much hope of a world police force! :rolleyes:

I see the UN going the way of the "old republic"....all it needs is an "anakin" to see dictatorship as more effective than a UN that cant make any decisions and then cut them out the loop in the need for security (which was anakins rationale too....to be strong enough to protect people). :rolleyes:

It would be very easily done....

Atomik
09-10--2006, 08:36 PM
I see the UN going the way of the "old republic"....all it needs is an "anakin" to see dictatorship as more effective than a UN that cant make any decisions and then cut them out the loop in the need for security (which was anakins rationale too....to be strong enough to protect people). :rolleyes:

It would be very easily done....But it's not that simple. The reason the UN can't make decisions is because the nation states that constitute the UN have different interests. Plus, the UN has no muscle of its own. Its only 'army' is what the members will lend it. Seriously, the UN is a joke. There is no way in hell it's even remotely possible that it could transform itself into a "world police".

Coyote
10-10--2006, 10:01 AM
But it's not that simple. The reason the UN can't make decisions is because the nation states that constitute the UN have different interests. Plus, the UN has no muscle of its own. Its only 'army' is what the members will lend it. Seriously, the UN is a joke. There is no way in hell it's even remotely possible that it could transform itself into a "world police".

Exactly; it will be disbanded as "ineffective" by a little anakin who offers more effective intervention in return for greater "policing" powers...

Atomik
10-10--2006, 10:07 AM
Exactly; it will be disbanded as "ineffective" by a little anakin who offers more effective intervention in return for greater "policing" powers...Even assuming one person had the power to disband the UN, what are they gonna do if they disbanded it? Where's their muscle gonna come from? The UN has no tropps or money of its own.

Coyote
10-10--2006, 10:19 AM
Even assuming one person had the power to disband the UN, what are they gonna do if they disbanded it? Where's their muscle gonna come from? The UN has no tropps or money of its own.

Hitler managed it in 1930s germany..... All it takes is a threat big enough, or a perception of one, and the sheeps will baaaaaa for a shepherd to protect them :rolleyes:

Besides, its part of the globalism agenda for a single army/police force - a new "coalition of the willing" will be a start....

magicmonkey
10-10--2006, 10:28 AM
Hitler managed it in 1930s germany..... All it takes is a threat big enough, or a perception of one, and the sheeps will baaaaaa for a shepherd to protect them :rolleyes:

Well it could be argued that Hitler did more to create the UN that anyone else, and they weren't officially the UN until 1945 so I'm failing to see the relevance here. The whole Hilter/Nazi problem was born from one nation and nothing to do with international policing of war. I'm afraid people using Hitler as a justification for their views on current world politics annoys me, it's only relevance to todays politics is as a 'what not to do' article for any aspiring leaders, it's true place is the history books.

Coyote
10-10--2006, 10:35 AM
Well it could be argued that Hitler did more to create the UN that anyone else, and they weren't officially the UN until 1945 so I'm failing to see the relevance here. The whole Hilter/Nazi problem was born from one nation and nothing to do with international policing of war. I'm afraid people using Hitler as a justification for their views on current world politics annoys me, it's only relevance to todays politics is as a 'what not to do' article for any aspiring leaders, it's true place is the history books.

No sorry, I meant the way Hilter destroyed the previous way of governing germany, with the support of a huge part of the poulace can be seen as an example of what could happen on a global level.

Hitler showed up the previous governance as being ineffective in dealing with a (percieved) menace (Jews/Versailles etc) and offered a more authoritarian solution....

The UN is similarly being shown to be ineffective in offering "solutions" to global issues and so I expect a hitler figure to come along and offer a solution to the "Why wont somebody do something?! Why doesnt the UN work?!" masses...

magicmonkey
10-10--2006, 10:48 AM
I can see the point your trying to make, I just don't agree with it. The workings of one country can't be extrapolated to the workings of the world as there are just too many variables to make a reasonable comparison, each country acting as it's own independant entity with it's own alliences and enemies relating to other countries cannot be likened to a voter crossing a box on a slip because they want the NHS to have more money.

Every time power changes hands through an election the majority of voters have cast out the old system and brought in the new because of their relative performance in one way or another, using Hitler as the example served no cause other than adding a bit of 'punch' to the argument

Atomik
10-10--2006, 10:53 AM
Hitler managed it in 1930s germany.....No he didn't he managed to unify Germany - not the whole bloody world.


All it takes is a threat big enough, or a perception of one, and the sheeps will baaaaaa for a shepherd to protect them :rolleyes:I'm not disagreeing. But you're shifting the dicsussion. We were talking specifically about whether the UN could be an embryonic world police force. It has no weapons, soldiers or money of its own, and relies on the support of nation states. They can hardly even agree on sanctions against a tinpot regime like North Korea, so I can't imagine they're the first stage of the New World Order!


Besides, its part of the globalism agenda for a single army/police force - a new "coalition of the willing" will be a start....It's a joke. It'll never happen. No way will all the world's powers ever agree to an agenda that'd be sufficiently cohesive to allow a world army/police force. NATO can't even agree amongst itself, and nor can the UN. There's not a single iota of actual evidence to support such an extreme theory. Everything we know about the UN suggests it's far more likely to disintegrate than evolve into something sinister.

Atomik
10-10--2006, 10:54 AM
The UN is similarly being shown to be ineffective in offering "solutions" to global issues and so I expect a hitler figure to come along and offer a solution to the "Why wont somebody do something?! Why doesnt the UN work?!" masses...Yes, but Germany was a nation state with resources, and so could be taken over by a charismatic leader. The UN is just a talking shop.

Coyote
10-10--2006, 10:58 AM
The workings of one country can't be extrapolated to the workings of the world as there are just too many variables to make a reasonable comparison, each country acting as it's own independant entity with it's own alliences and enemies relating to other countries cannot be likened to a voter crossing a box on a slip because they want the NHS to have more money.

Not so, 1930s germany was the first electronic media savvy industrial power, that knew you can get democratic support for authoritarianism if you scare the voters enough. See today the same methods being used on a smaller scale for the patriot act in the UsA and the detention witout trial over here.

Put that on a global stage and its a model for global policing....given a big enough threat (like Korea and Iran getting nukes - naughty countries....its not as if anyone who is telling them off has nukes or has ever used them.....:rolleyes: ).


Every time power changes hands through an election the majority of voters have cast out the old system and brought in the new because of their relative performance in one way or another, using Hitler as the example served no cause other than adding a bit of 'punch' to the argument

Hitler replaced a democracy with a dictatorship, not merely replaced the previous party in a continuing democratic system. He's not just "argument spice" but a relvent example of what will happen again (and its very nieve to assume such things cant happen again.....:rolleyes: ).

Atomik
10-10--2006, 10:59 AM
This thread is getting extremely off topic, so I'm splitting it off.

Coyote
10-10--2006, 11:00 AM
Yes, but Germany was a nation state with resources, and so could be taken over by a charismatic leader. The UN is just a talking shop.

In a global electronic market you dont need to directly control the resources; all you need is to control the electronic money....

Coyote
10-10--2006, 11:02 AM
you're shifting the dicsussion. We were talking specifically about whether the UN could be an embryonic world police force.

Nope, I'm saying it will be replaced by a dictator for that very reason, not that it itself will be an "embryonic world police force"

Atomik
10-10--2006, 11:03 AM
In a global electronic market you dont need to directly control the resources; all you need is to control the electronic money....I agree. But the UN doesn't have any money other than what governments choose to give it.

John
10-10--2006, 11:03 AM
Well Coyote - If it looks like happening I'll get my placards out and you can buy a high-powered sniper rifle and we can put a stop to it... As it stands it may be possible but I think the likelihood of it happening is pretty slim...

Atomik
10-10--2006, 11:03 AM
Nope, I'm saying it will be replaced by a dictator for that very reason, not that it itself will be an "embryonic world police force"But what's to replace? And replace with what? Who is gonna replace the UN and what will they use for an army?

Coyote
10-10--2006, 11:06 AM
.... first stage of the New World Order!

It's a joke. It'll never happen. No way will all the world's powers ever agree to an agenda that'd be sufficiently cohesive to allow a world army/police force. NATO can't even agree amongst itself, and nor can the UN. There's not a single iota of actual evidence to support such an extreme theory. Everything we know about the UN suggests it's far more likely to disintegrate than evolve into something sinister.

I thought you were a student of history Dok :harhar: England was once a set of scabbling kingdoms....which became unified into a nation and then an empire. It took a while without electronic media and industrialisation. With those accelerators dont expect it to take 1000 years.....

The same happens in business. The same will happen to the nation state into a global empire....

Coyote
10-10--2006, 11:08 AM
But what's to replace? And replace with what? Who is gonna replace the UN and what will they use for an army?

A hitler figure. No one, prior to 1930 in germany, would have been able to propose a genuine alternative to the governance there....then a few years later out popped a little mad austrian and BOOM.

The new hitler would not need an army if he is media savvy enough - as that could function as his storm troopers - but Bush's America is certainly having a go and NATO is not far behind.

Atomik
10-10--2006, 11:08 AM
I thought you were a student of history Dok :harhar: England was once a set of scabbling kingdoms....which became unified into a nationWell if you want to postulate the emergence of a world government in a few hundred years time, I'll go along with that hypothesis. But at this point in history, there is no sign whatsoever of anyone having the power to conquer the world or the political agreement to make it a realistic proposition.

Atomik
10-10--2006, 11:10 AM
but Bush's America is certainly having a go and NATO is not far behind.Two problems - America can barely manage to keep its shit together in Iraq. It doesn't have the resources for what you propose. Secondly, NATO is already fractured and struggling to agree on a way forward. American and European interests are too different for NATO ever to emerge as anything other than a loose coalition. And if it did, do you think Russia and China would just roll over and play ball?

Coyote
10-10--2006, 04:55 PM
Well if you want to postulate the emergence of a world government in a few hundred years time, I'll go along with that hypothesis. But at this point in history, there is no sign whatsoever of anyone having the power to conquer the world or the political agreement to make it a realistic proposition.

I'd suggest it was highly likely within the next 50 years, probably less, based on an economic global empire that demands a world policeforce to protect its interests.

Atomik
10-10--2006, 04:58 PM
I'd suggest it was highly likely within the next 50 years, probably less, based on an economic global empire that demands a world policeforce to protect its interests.How? The US can't even hold down Iraq. What chance does it have of policing the whole world?

Coyote
10-10--2006, 05:03 PM
How? The US can't even hold down Iraq. What chance does it have of policing the whole world?

I dont mean the US in particular..... The global industrial economy as a whole will require a global policer force to protect its interests and keep the world stable (as a global market is highly susceptable to events across the world)....and that/they will call for a global policing body to be established to achieve this.

Thus any resultant body will arise out of corporate sector need rather than from a governmental body.

Atomik
10-10--2006, 05:13 PM
Thus any resultant body will arise out of corporate sector need rather than from a governmental body.And there's absolutely no sign of this nor any precedent for it. Given that America can't even hold down Iraq, you'd need an army on a vast scale..... much bigger than that of America (the world's only superpower). Where would this army be based? Who would train it? What government would be prepared to allow it on its soil? Where, in fact, is there the slightest shred of evidence that anything like this is in the offing. Sorry dude, but this is wandering into science-fiction territory.

Coyote
10-10--2006, 05:21 PM
And there's absolutely no sign of this nor any precedent for it.
Yup there is. Most modern empires have begun as economic vensures (think of teh east india company for example) who set up private policers to protect their needs as well as using the army of the homeland.

There is already the begininngs of it with Interpol and Europol on criminal matters and international cooperation on matters like "rendition"...then there is the snowballing of a european id card scheme...


Given that America can't even hold down Iraq, you'd need an army on a vast scale..... much bigger than that of America (the world's only superpower). Where would this army be based? Who would train it? What government would be prepared to allow it on its soil?
Govts will be circumvented by immeasurably more influential transnational companies who hold a nations wealth under their control...and it would not take a giant army where local forces answer to a global framework.



Where, in fact, is there the slightest shred of evidence that anything like this is in the offing. Sorry dude, but this is wandering into science-fiction territory.
Its already happening....

.....and the pressure from global business to create a stable environment will be supported by govts and people alike as they dont want their economies damaged.

Atomik
10-10--2006, 05:32 PM
Yup there is. Most modern empires have begun as economic vensures (think of teh east india company for example) who set up private policers to protect their needs as well as using the army of the homeland.That's not in the same league as a world military that can enforce their will on nation states.


There is already the begininngs of it with Interpol and Europol on criminal matters and international cooperation on matters like "rendition"...then there is the snowballing of a european id card scheme...

Govts will be circumvented by immeasurably more influential transnational companies who hold a nations wealth under their control...and it would not take a giant army where local forces answer to a global framework.That's law enforcement on a personal level, which is completely different from the global police force we've been talking about up until this point - which was a military one that can enforce its will on any nation state it chooses. Again, you'd need an army of unprecedented size and power to make this possible. Where's that army, or even its prototype?


Its already happening....

.....and the pressure from global business to create a stable environment will be supported by govts and people alike as they dont want their economies damaged.No it's not. Not in the sense you were alluding to earlier. Where is this army that can effectively police the world and enforce its will? America can't even police its own interests, and the majority of nations don't support them anyway. No corporation is even close to developing an army as far as I'm aware, and nor do they have the resources to do it. Where's the evidence of this world military police?

Coyote
11-10--2006, 12:29 PM
That's not in the same league as a world military that can enforce their will on nation states.

Nope, its a stepping stone in a progression showing the methods more useful as the size of empire expands.


That's law enforcement on a personal level, which is completely different from the global police force we've been talking about up until this point - which was a military one that can enforce its will on any nation state it chooses. Again, you'd need an army of unprecedented size and power to make this possible. Where's that army, or even its prototype?

Nah you wouldnt; all you need is a global system that existing armed forces answer to....they then become assimilated into a common system of enforcement - with the power resting with those who control the system itself.

For example, you can have local armies all supporting the global industrial economy because they value the prizes and benefits of being part of such a system. If you then control the basics of that system you can then bind the globe to your will, winning the PR of billions of "consumers" through a blend of charismatic media manipulation and bribery inherent to the system (support a global governance structure because it keeps your shiney things coming...and these will disappear without an inforced international security).

You can see the beginnings of it now in the EU/Europol and the WTO/Interpol.

It wont be an explicit single culture empire in the sense of the white men beating up the fuzzy wuzzies or whatever.....it will be an empire of common values (global capitalism) that then gets enforced by franchised security obediant to an overstructure.

No it's not. Not in the sense you were alluding to earlier. Where is this army that can effectively police the world and enforce its will? America can't even police its own interests, and the majority of nations don't support them anyway. No corporation is even close to developing an army as far as I'm aware, and nor do they have the resources to do it. Where's the evidence of this world military police?[/quote]

Atomik
11-10--2006, 04:35 PM
Nope, its a stepping stone in a progression showing the methods more useful as the size of empire expands.It's only a stepping stone if you assume that the goal that you envision is realistic or possible. It isn't.


Nah you wouldnt; all you need is a global system that existing armed forces answer to....they then become assimilated into a common system of enforcement - with the power resting with those who control the system itself.Check out the UN. It doesn't work. Nation states keep pulling in different directions. They can't agree on anything. Again, this has no basis in reality.


For example, you can have local armies all supporting the global industrial economy because they value the prizes and benefits of being part of such a system.But in reality, this isn't what happens. States pursue their own interests in a short-sighted and selfish fashion. How come Europe didn't rally round the US in Iraq if we're all pursuing a single global agenda? And where exactly do China and Russia fit into this idea?

This is all great paranoid science-fiction, but there's simply no evidence of anything on this kind of global scale in the real world.

Coyote
12-10--2006, 01:40 PM
It's only a stepping stone if you assume that the goal that you envision is realistic or possible. It isn't.
Why do you assume that it aint possible dok? It was possible to go from many small mini-kingdoms in ancient britain to a unified england, then a unified britain, then a british empire....

Why does a global empire seem so impossible?


Check out the UN. It doesn't work. Nation states keep pulling in different directions. They can't agree on anything. Again, this has no basis in reality.

Yup....just like the little kings in the petty kingdoms of pre-unified britain.

Only so long as economic alliegance is to a nation state; as transnational corps start to reach beyond the nation state (as they already are doing) tis only natural that such power is granted into their hands. Replacing the nation state with "free trade areas" where corps have more influence than the waning nation states.


But in reality, this isn't what happens. States pursue their own interests in a short-sighted and selfish fashion. How come Europe didn't rally round the US in Iraq if we're all pursuing a single global agenda? And where exactly do China and Russia fit into this idea?

This is all great paranoid science-fiction, but there's simply no evidence of anything on this kind of global scale in the real world.
Why paranoid? I'm no more against the global empire than I am against the nation state so its hardly a case of paranoia :D

The european countries did not rally round the US, but the european companies are more than willing to partake - the nation state is being left behind more power going into the hands of corps than countries.... Sure the nation state is still here but its time is very much going....