Proposed Global Defense Force to replace individual national militaries

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
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.

I doubt the world will put its collective trust and politics into one entity controlling all the world's armed forces. Not going to happen, ever. So we are left with the UN. Which just doesn't work. In fact, if the World could reach this point where we trusted enough in each other to support a GDF, we infact would not need it, would we?

reply to post by wayouttheredude
ok so it would be a "black water" type of contract security pay your dues and join or "TS" your on your own , no i do not like it UN and NATO is ok for what they are, and what would make them pay up front for security?

If there is no threat or is this for country's like Israel Iran Egypt Cuba Libya, so China would not be part of it nor would most of South America, how would Russia fit in?

reply to post by wayouttheredude


Interesting idea, as it sounds very much like what the EU did to prevent war in Europe (amongst its Member-States anyways), but I think that on the global stage there is unfortunately too much to be lost in the protection of trade routes and economic hegemony for something like this to catch on.

reply to post by bekod


You got it. Idea fail. Which means our current administration probably loves it.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Explain how you would be "giving up your freedom"?

They could use the existing military in each country instead of conscripting people.

I'm not pro-NWO but I do want to gain a better understanding of what is at risk if such a movement were to get off the ground. Would it be a 100% negative thing or would the benefits be 50/50, 75/25 or what?

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


Do you think the world would prefer to continue with what does not work or do you think they might want to instead support what might work? I know that a global rule making body of statist does not work. A global contract security force that protects all member nations from aggression is more appealing then a bunch of do nothing chair warmers like the UN.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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)

Apologies you are correct:
I needed to go a few layers deeper in quote/quote/quote layers to
O.P. " way out there dude" I do wear glasses.....though This topic just hits me hard upside the head the day after "o-man" claims he can send you to Guantanamo for life even if aquitted by the courts..

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
What do i think? I think its a recipe for a global police state.

Duh! Of course it is. but it is only going to make it official what has been unofficialy since the beginning of WWII. The US is the unoffical cop of the world. (Agree or not, like it or not, it is true in the true meaning of the word. Not that a police force need be perfect, mind you.)

Two functions, first to thwart China in some of its expansionist moves. So that aspect will draw in the Russians and their associated friends into the fold. OK. Three functions, here's the second: to draw in the Asians that are afraid of China. Finally, it is to complete the circle of power needed by the UN to formalize the NWO, that would be the third function.

Why all of this is happening is far beyond a UN police force with bite as the master control for the NWO. I seriously suspect that the ETs are telling our various leaders to "Make it so" ...or else. Honestly, that is the only thing that makes sense. No Western country wants to share (read as give away) its wealth,erase borders, deny nationalism and promote multiculturalism. Those are not human traits, not even liberals usually go that far! (Yes, tongue in cheek but not joking.)

reply to post by wayouttheredude
the world prefers a do nothing, mind your own biz, security. That is why we /they have NATO and the UN, go to the UN first when the shooting starts call in NATO and rename it remember IFOR this IFOR en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by The Sword


Conscription might not have been the right word to use. The idea is that there would be a requirement of all member nations to provide a per capita force of half of one percent of their population. It also requires a half of one percent of the member nation's GDP. In this way a nation with a poor GDP would not be burdened with a global tax more than they could bare. If they have a larger population than their GDP would reflect they would have more members in the GDF then smaller nations by population but with higher GDP.

The GDF would also pay these people as professional soldiers so there is no conscription in the classic sense. These member nations would get some percentage of their contribution back in the form of their nation's income tax to their GDF soldiers.

reply to post by Aliensun
yes i agree and it does sound familiar, as well as the thought as seen here www.historylearningsite.co.uk... just one line sticks out

Police State was to ensure that everybody did as they were told

does this not seem the same as the op's?

reply to post by bekod


I do not think so. This would prevent a Nazi state that was aggressive from domination of another state. No real comparison. Think free association by contract instead of force of the rule of the few.

reply to post by bekod


I think the savings of the system would attract the Chinese Russians and all other nations. If the US signed on as pilot member this would mean a huge decrease in the US military budget. China and Russia would benefit from our decreased expenditure as well as other nations. Here is a list of per capita expenditure by nation.

Rank↓ ↓ Country↓ Military expenditure, 2009[2]↓ % of GDP, 2008↓
1 United States United States of America 663,255,000,000 4.3%
2 People's Republic of China China 98,800,000,000 2.0%
3 United Kingdom United Kingdom 69,271,000,000 2.5%
4 France France 67,316,000,000 2.3%
5 Russia Russian Federation 61,000,000,000 3.5%
6 Germany Germany 48,022,000,000 1.3%
7 Japan Japan 46,859,000,000 0.9%
8 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia 39,257,000,000 8.2%
9 Italy Italy 37,427,000,000 1.7%
10 India India 36,600,000,000 2.6%
11 South Korea South Korea 27,130,000,000 2.8%
12 Brazil Brazil 27,124,000,000 1.5%
13 Canada Canada 20,564,000,000 1.3%
14 Australia Australia 20,109,000,000 1.8%
15 Spain Spain 19,409,000,000 1.2%
16 Turkey Turkey 19,009,000,000 2.2%
17 Israel Israel 14,309,000,000 7.0%
18 Greece Greece 13,917,000,000 3.6%
19 United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates 13,052,000,000a 5.9%a
20 Netherlands Netherlands 12,642,000,000 1.4%
21 Poland Poland 10,860,000,000 2.0%
22 Colombia Colombia 10,055,000,000 3.7%
23 Republic of China Republic of China (Taiwan) 9,866,000,000 2.1%
24 Iran Iran 9,174,000,000b 2.7%
25 Singapore Singapore 7,966,000,000 4.1%
26 Sweden Sweden 6,135,000,000 1.3%
27 Norway Norway 6,098,000,000 1.3%
28 Chile Chile 5,683,000,000 3.5%
29 Algeria Algeria 5,677,000,000 3.0%
30 Belgium Belgium 5,674,000,000 1.2%
31 Mexico Mexico 5,490,000,000 0.5%
32 Indonesia Indonesia 4,908,000,000 1.0%
33 Thailand Thailand 4,908,000,000 1.5%
34 Portugal Portugal 4,884,000,000 2.0%
35 Pakistan Pakistan 4,823,000,000 2.6%
36 Kuwait Kuwait 4,589,000,000 3.2%
37 Denmark Denmark 4,476,000,000 1.4%
38 Ukraine Ukraine 4,258,000,000 2.7%
39 Switzerland Switzerland 4,141,000,000 0.8%
40 Malaysia Malaysia 4,078,000,000 2.0%
41 Oman Oman 4,003,000,000 7.7%
42 South Africa South Africa 3,926,000,000 1.3%
43 Iraq Iraq 3,814,000,000 5.4%
44 Finland Finland 3,768,000,000 1.3%
45 Egypt Egypt 3,665,000,000 2.3%
46 Austria Austria 3,650,000,000 0.9%
47 Venezuela Venezuela 3,254,000,000 1.4%
48 Czech Republic Czech Republic 3,246,000,000 1.3%
49 Morocco Morocco 3,143,000,000 3.4%
50 Angola Angola 2,893,000,000 3.0%
51 Romania Romania 2,616,000,000 1.5%
52 Argentina Argentina 2,608,000,000 0.8%
53 Vietnam Vietnam 2,073,000,000 2.4%
54 Sudan Sudan 1,971,000,000c 4.4%c
55 Hungary Hungary 1,900,000,000 1.2%
56 Syria Syria 1,883,000,000 3.4%
57 Nigeria Nigeria 1,681,000,000 0.8%
58 Republic of Ireland Ireland 1,581,000,000 0.6%
59 Kazakhstan Kazakhstan 1,540,000,000 1.2%
60 Sri Lanka Sri Lanka 1,525,000,000 3.6%
61 Peru Peru 1,502,000,000 1.1%
62 New Zealand New Zealand 1,447,000,000 1.1%
63 Azerbaijan Azerbaijan 1,434,000,000 3.8%
64 Philippines Philippines 1,424,000,000 0.8%
65 Lebanon Lebanon 1,408,000,000 3.9%
66 Jordan Jordan 1,392,000,000 5.9%
67 Slovakia Slovakia 1,316,000,000 1.5%
68 Yemen Yemen 1,196,000,000 4.2%
69 Croatia Croatia 1,191,000,000 1.9%
70 Bulgaria Bulgaria 1,127,000,000 2.4%
71 Libya Libya 1,100,000,000b 1.0%
72 Serbia Serbia 1,070,000,000 2.4%
73 Belarus Belarus 1,036,000,000 1.5%
74 Bangladesh Bangladesh 938,000,000 1.0%
75 Slovenia Slovenia 888,000,000 1.5%
76 Bahrain Bahrain 721,000,000 3.0%
77 Latvia Latvia 692,000,000 1.9%
78 Georgia (country) Georgia 665,000,000 8.5%
79 Lithuania Lithuania 648,000,000 1.5%
80 Tunisia Tunisia 571,000,000 1.3%
81 Cyprus Cyprus 550,000,000 1.8%
82 Kenya Kenya 518,000,000 1.9%
83 Uruguay Uruguay 496,000,000 1.3%
84 Estonia Estonia 460,000,000 2.2%
85 Ethiopia Ethiopia 422,000,000 1.4%
86 Chad Chad 412,000,000 6.6%
87 Luxembourg Luxembourg 406,000,000a 0.7%
88 Armenia Armenia 405,000,000 3.3%
89 Côte d'Ivoire Côte d'Ivoire 369,000,000b 1.5%
90 Botswana Botswana 353,000,000 2.7%
91 Cameroon Cameroon 352,000,000 1.5%
92 Uganda Uganda 341,000,000 2.3%
93 Brunei Brunei 336,000,000 3.9%
94 Eritrea Eritrea 327,000,000d 20.9%d
95 Namibia Namibia 283,000,000 3.5%
96 Albania Albania 276,000,000 2.0%
97 Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina 276,000,000 1.4%
98 Afghanistan Afghanistan 272,000,000 1.9%
99 Dominican Republic Dominican Republic 272,000,000 0.6%
100 Bolivia Bolivia 268,000,000 1.5%
101 Zambia Zambia 251,000,000 2.0%
102 Turkmenistan Turkmenistan 236,000,000e 2.9%e
103 Senegal Senegal 217,000,000 1.6%
104 Tanzania Tanzania 216,000,000 1.1%
105 Republic of Macedonia Republic of Macedonia 204,000,000 1.8%
106 Nepal Nepal 194,000,000 2.0%
107 Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan 185,000,000 3.7%b
108 Mali Mali 182,000,000 1.9%
109 Guatemala Guatemala 175,000,000 0.4%
110 Republic of the Congo Congo, Republic of the 142,000,000a 1.1%
111 Paraguay Paraguay 140,000,000 0.8%
112 Panama Panama 138,000,000e 1.0%e
113 El Salvador El Salvador 134,000,000 0.5%
114 Democratic Republic of the Congo Congo, Democratic Republic of the 127,000,000 1.4%
115 Ghana Ghana 127,000,000 0.7%
116 Cambodia Cambodia 123,000,000b 1.1%
117 Mauritania Mauritania 122,000,000 3.7%
118 Burkina Faso Burkina Faso 112,000,000 1.4%
119 Honduras Honduras 105,000,000 0.8%
120 Madagascar Madagascar 103,000,000b 1.1%
121 Guinea Guinea 99,800,000f 2.2%f
122 Mozambique Mozambique 92,500,000 0.8%
123 Jamaica Jamaica 80,300,000 0.6%
124 Rwanda Rwanda 72,700,000 1.5%
125 Mongolia Mongolia 71,000,000a 1.4%a
126 Benin Benin 67,700,000b 1.1%
127 Tajikistan Tajikistan 63,400,000f 2.2%f
128 Swaziland Swaziland 60,000,000a 1.9%a
129 Togo Togo 57,000,000 1.9%
130 Uzbekistan Uzbekistan 52,000,000d 1.9%d
131 Malta Malta 51,600,000 0.7%
132 Fiji Fiji 48,400,000b 1.3%
133 Malawi Malawi 45,100,000a 1.5%a
134 Sierra Leone Sierra Leone 44,600,000b 2.4%
135 Burundi Burundi 43,900,000 4.0%
136 Lesotho Lesotho 43,600,000 1.6%
137 Niger Niger 43,000,000g 0.5%g
138 Nicaragua Nicaragua 41,700,000 0.7%
139 Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea 37,200,000 0.4%
140 Central African Republic Central African Republic 36,700,000 1.6%
141 Djibouti Djibouti 36,300,000b 3.7%
142 Moldova Moldova 27,500,000 0.6%
143 Laos Laos 21,200,000g 0.4%
144 Guinea-Bissau Guinea-Bissau 16,800,000g 3.8%g
145 Belize Belize 15,600,000b 1.1%
146 Mauritius Mauritius 15,300,000b 0.2%
147 Iceland Iceland 12,200,000 0.1%
148 Cape Verde Cape Verde 8,800,000 0.5%
149 Guyana Guyana 7,900,000h 0.8%h
150 Liberia Liberia 7,100,000 0.6%
151 Seychelles Seychelles 6,600,000 1.3%
152 The Gambia Gambia, The 5,300,000a 0.5%a
153 North Korea North Korea Not reported na i
154 Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Not reported 1.9%c
[quote/]

As you can see this idea could drop the per capita spending on defense of the world by quite a large figure. Even those nations that currently spend only 1% - 2% would save millions or billions per year.

reply to post by 46ACE


This idea is for global security that is paid on a contract basis. Poor nations can provide more soldiers and gain revenue from their income. Rich nations can save the cost of much larger security forces by distribution of the cost of global police actions paid equally by all member nations.

I am sure that such a proposal would do away with the "militia" rationale for the 2nd Amendment..altho that would not negate the natural rights of man.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


I think that militias would be allowed as internal security to each member state so it would not consider such militia programs and internal deployments.

55 responses and not one star or flag? You folks want to discuss this but also want the discussion to go away it seems. Weird.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

Do you think the world would prefer to continue with what does not work or do you think they might want to instead support what might work? I know that a global rule making body of statist does not work. A global contract security force that protects all member nations from aggression is more appealing then a bunch of do nothing chair warmers like the UN.

Way, you are crediting the UN and the international community with far more sense and intelligence than they have ever evidenced.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


You actually are a proponent for this goofy idea? The people that take a month to decide on what toilet paper should bought for the UN building??? And they should have final say on GDF deployments??? Good God.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
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.

I doubt the world will put its collective trust and politics into one entity controlling all the world's armed forces. Not going to happen, ever. So we are left with the UN. Which just doesn't work. In fact, if the World could reach this point where we trusted enough in each other to support a GDF, we infact would not need it, would we?

edit on 9-3-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: (no reason given)

Mind if I repost this for a response?