Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proposed Global Defense Force to replace individual national militaries

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


Internal disputes would not be undertaken by the GDF. A no fly zone over a member nation would only be erected to protect that nation from an outside aggressor.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitch303
 


A 15 million strong standing army with a annual budget of nearly 300 billion when the second largest military in the world is not near as strong is plenty don't you think?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


Internal disputes would not be undertaken by the GDF. A no fly zone over a member nation would only be erected to protect that nation from an outside aggressor.


They still would take a year to actually do a dang thing. It is a stupid idea.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Pure contract terms. If a member nation is attacked by an aggressor nation that aggression is repelled by the GDF. All nations that are members sign a non-aggression pact and if they break this they are expelled from the GDF and attacked by all member nations.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


How much freedom do we have now as the defacto global police force? We are already a police state. I am discussing distribution of the cost and responsibility for global security to the rest of the globe.

edit on 9-3-2011 by wayouttheredude because: dyslexic


No y ou are ignoring the way the world actually works.

A common 'world police' could not fight wars, and not only that, but what do you suppose they would be more interested in protecting...the corporations that provide their money, or the freedoms of the civilian?


Who would decide to employ these forces ? what would their objective be?This is extraordinarily dangerous. So a motion is made by Chinese leaders to "global world command that those darn Americans are "aggressive" again by securing their southern border and World Commands sends in 20,000 malaysian and nepalese conscripts. to "stabilze the situation.. ever wonder where the" Blue helmets" =trargets ideology comes from?

This! Please tell me you are not idiotic enough to believe the superficial global peace b.s.("captain") This will be sold under(??) Americans will be naturally reluctant to shoot at u.s.national guard forces. Foreign u.n.forces" will be seen and treated as invaders..
edit on 9-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


Think you either didnt understand what i was saying, or directed your response at the wrong person.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
You know, this is a dumb enough idea that Obama probably supports it.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Part of the common defense is a signing of a non-aggression pact for all member nations. There would be no offensive capacity for member nations.

"war is politics by other means: politics is economics by other means: Non- aggression pacts?; so no military agression and no "economic aggression" ( dumping currencies& dumping products? to destroy another country's economic base?)

Gunfire is not the only means of aggression.
edit on 9-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Found some good numbers that should be discussed.




World military expenditure in 2009 is estimated to have reached $1.531 trillion in current dollars; This represents a 6 per cent increase in real terms since 2008 and a 49 per cent increase since 2000; This corresponds to 2.7 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP), or approximately $225 for each person in the world; The USA with its massive spending budget, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for just under half of the world total, at 46.5% of the world total;


Source: Global military spending

The US spends nearly half of the world's entire spending on defense. Under this proposed scheme we would spend out 0.5% only. The world would simply pay for its policing more fairly and no nation would feel excluded from the global security apparatus.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
It seems that we'll soon no longer need a military at all . The U.S. has the the ability to push a button and blow most humans off the face of the planet , next thing they'll be crawling in those bunkers we are paying for so they can blow up their own citizens.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


How much freedom do we have now as the defacto global police force? We are already a police state. I am discussing distribution of the cost and responsibility for global security to the rest of the globe.

edit on 9-3-2011 by wayouttheredude because: dyslexic


No y ou are ignoring the way the world actually works.

A common 'world police' could not fight wars, and not only that, but what do you suppose they would be more interested in protecting...the corporations that provide their money, or the freedoms of the civilian?


Who would decide to employ these forces ? what would their objective be?This is extraordinarily dangerous. So a motion is made by Chinese leaders to "global world command that those darn Americans are "aggressive" again by securing their southern border and World Commands sends in 20,000 malaysian and nepalese conscripts. to "stabilze the situation.. ever wonder where the" Blue helmets" =trargets ideology comes from?

This! Please tell me you are not idiotic enough to believe the superficial global peace b.s.("captain") This will be sold under(??) Americans will be naturally reluctant to shoot at u.s.national guard forces. Foreign u.n.forces" will be seen and treated as invaders..
edit on 9-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


Think you either didnt understand what i was saying, or directed your response at the wrong person.


it was directed at "captaintyin knots" who seems to think this is a "peachy "idea
edit on 9-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


How much freedom do we have now as the defacto global police force? We are already a police state. I am discussing distribution of the cost and responsibility for global security to the rest of the globe.

edit on 9-3-2011 by wayouttheredude because: dyslexic


No y ou are ignoring the way the world actually works.

A common 'world police' could not fight wars, and not only that, but what do you suppose they would be more interested in protecting...the corporations that provide their money, or the freedoms of the civilian?


Who would decide to employ these forces ? what would their objective be?This is extraordinarily dangerous. So a motion is made by Chinese leaders to "global world command that those darn Americans are "aggressive" again by securing their southern border and World Commands sends in 20,000 malaysian and nepalese conscripts. to "stabilze the situation.. ever wonder where the" Blue helmets" =trargets ideology comes from?

This! Please tell me you are not idiotic enough to believe the superficial global peace b.s.("captain") This will be sold under(??) Americans will be naturally reluctant to shoot at u.s.national guard forces. Foreign u.n.forces" will be seen and treated as invaders..
edit on 9-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


Think you either didnt understand what i was saying, or directed your response at the wrong person.


it was directed at "captaintyin knots" who seems to think this is a "peachy "idea
edit on 9-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


Yeah, thats me, and no, i dont. you misunderstood. Try re-reading with your glasses on this time
edit on 9-3-2011 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


How is it dumb to distribute the cost and responsibility for global security the the rest of the world? Right now the US pays nearly 50% of the total cost. We would redistribute this cost to the of the world with this GDF.

edit on 9-3-2011 by wayouttheredude because: dyslexic



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by YesImOneg
It seems that we'll soon no longer need a military at all . The U.S. has the the ability to push a button and blow most humans off the face of the planet , next thing they'll be crawling in those bunkers we are paying for so they can blow up their own citizens.

We and the soviets have had that ability for decades....threats to the populace don't come from the military but from the people who own and run the govt.
edit on 9-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by YesImOneg
 


This discussion relates to redistribution of the cost and manpower for global security to a global defense force. The United States, China and the Russians have lots of nukes but we still have war. This idea is for changing the game to one of spending our national resources on peace instead of overwhelmingly for war.

See this graphic for an idea of the totals.



We simply spend way to much for our global and national security. The GDF proposal changes that to a more fair and balanced world resource expenditure.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


How is it dumb to distribute the cost and responsibility for global security the the rest of the world? Right now the US pays nearly 50% of the total cost. We would redistribute this cost to the of the world with this GDF.

edit on 9-3-2011 by wayouttheredude because: dyslexic

How about we let the world handle"global security"without signing any treaties or agreeing to fund and support a global military?

Do you honestly think we will reduce our military spending to .5%?There's a few billions involved here the military industrial complex is not gonna just cut everything (ie.U.S. jobs). We will simply add .5% to our current!

Ultimately we decide if and when our forces are used.not some U.N. high commission that rules by global concensus.and takes years to decide to write a letter sanctioning a regime.
every global situation has two sides...Do you honestly think the "global military command " will be fighting against privatization of resources ( water) or for it??????????
edit on 9-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Who said anything about any existing system like the UN as being involved. This would be a contract agency that is strictly limited to a specific action menu that is part of the contract signed by all nations. It is a pact or contract situation. The deciding body would be one person per member nation and they all have a simple up or down vote on a decision to action. The whole thing could be run by an AI for that matter. Pure logic and reasoning without emotion or the influence of avarice could be the only trigger for military action.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


I'll counter your question with another: When has the UN EVER responded with more than words and resolutions to ANY crisis within 6 months?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


If we get a GDF (goofy defense force) are we also going to streamline the UN so it actually can pull its collective thumb out of its rear-end to DO something in time? IE Libya???
edit on 9-3-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


Great thread!!!!!!! S&F


You poured your heart into this thread and you've done an astounding rezerch on this one.

LULZ!



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


This ides does not even consider the UN. In fact the UN would lose power under this proposal since it does not involve them one iota. What I am proposing is a kind of association by contract of the world's nations. Not a council of rule makers or would be global statist. This is a proposal for a Global Defense Force that would replace the large standing offensive armies of the world with a collective effort that is fairly distributed among nations. Everyone would win in this since everyone would participate on an equal per capita basis and have security that is based on mutual non aggression and equal protection.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join