World Affairs

[Sabretooth78 808]

 But I am stuck with it until 2016!

I don't see the logic here.  Either we're going to maintain the status quo (d) or justify our troop buildup in Kuwait for slaughter at the hands of the Iranians (r) in another needless war of zero strategic significance to us.  It all just depends on which wing of the D/RNC politicians' union wins the election.

 All things being equal at the time, Canada could have taken them in and given them a territory north of 60 which by now would have become a province like Quebec, wanting independence but not wanting to give up the benefits of being Canadian.

As for "Next year in Jerusalem", Jerusalem should have been declared an open city under the rule of the United Nations.  It is the centre of two or three major religions, and should not be inside any national territory.  The Romans had the right of it when they ripped the city down and expelled the Jews because they were too fractious to govern.  The Jews forfeited their right to that land over the centuries, and needed to be settled elsewhere.  Canada is not a land of milk and honey.  North of 60 it is cold, but there is lots of arable land and tons of mineral resources.  Instead of handing the Ungava territory over to Quebec, it would have been a great place for the Jews.

 

So perhaps Canada or the US should have created a state for them.

And Jerusalem should be a U N controlled indifferent zone, hell why not build the UN HQ there.

Interestingly enough, such proposals had been made for Grand Island, NY.  From what I've read (and all that wikipedia backs me on) it predated the Balfour Declaration by about a hundred years - who knows if it ever received any further consideration.  Apparently it had also been considered as the site for building the UN headquarters (or rather just over the Canadian border on Navy Island) which is something I did not know prior to this morning.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The suggestion of moving the U.N. H.Q. from the flesh-pots of New York to the holy ground of Jerusalem is a good one.  What they need with that towering office complex is beyond me.  A collection of yurts in some part of the Negev desert should suit them.

Being from Niagara Falls, Ont., I can assure everyone that Navy Island, on the brink of the Horseshoe Falls, is not really suitable for anything except a liberal sprinkling of dung from the seagulls it gets every day.  Grand Island is too small to be a homeland for any but rogue Yanks from New York and Buffalo.

If you want an island for the Jews, I suggest Baffin Island would be a good spot.

  Edited October 12, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  
Follow up.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

 But I am stuck with it until 2016!

I don't see the logic here.  Either we're going to maintain the status quo (d) or justify our troop buildup in Kuwait for slaughter at the hands of the Iranians (r) in another needless war of zero strategic significance to us.  It all just depends on which wing of the D/RNC politicians' union wins the election.

Yo, Sabretooth --

You are quite correct that the Democrats tend toward the "status quo", while the Republicans go more for the "Let's bomb them!" approach. 

And -- right again about the coming change in administrations.  It appears to be lined up much like it was back in '68 -- "Hawks" vs. "Doves".  (And as your "union" reference implies, the American People will have little to say about it.)  And I understand why my "stuck with it" comment may sound confusing.

I favor action over inaction -- a problem never goes away all by itself.  If it does, then it was never a "problem" in the first place.

I DO NOT favor any policy involving heavy US military involvement -- or -- only as a last resort.  Consequently, I have a foot in both camps, and I see the situation as multi-layered. 

There are three flash points fairly close together in the region -- the Ukraine, Syria, and Iran.  And there are three major players in the region -- US, Russia, and Iran. 

ONE:

Since Russia's aggression in the Ukraine, the US has sought to limit Putin's options because he does not appear to "play well with others", and is worrying the Nato members.  The Obama administration is attempting to throw roadblocks in his path anywhere they can, but I think they are mistaken about Syria.  (First point of disagreement with the current administration.)  I see Syria as a situation beyond our ability to solve -- but it is an opportunity.  If you cannot "save the world", then perhaps it is best to find some advantage in it. (We could debate the "morals" of that ideology -- but that is another story entirely.)  I see Syria as a distraction that takes Putin's attention away from the Ukraine.  It got suddenly quiet in the Ukraine when Putin began gathering money and resources to move into Syria.  His economy is weak -- indisputably -- and he is pouring copious amounts of Rubbles into the effort and risking serious issues.  He is aware of his exposure at this point and is flying 60+ sorties per day in an effort to wind this thing up quickly.  The news announced this morning that the US air-lifted a large cache of ammunition into the rebel-held zone in Syria.  It may well have included anti-air assets -- we don't know.  If we back the rebels that support regime change in Syria, then we are pursuing our policy and may well cause the Russians to get bogged-down in a location that does not directly threaten Nato members.  Obama's policy, heretofore, has NOT been to arm or directly support the rebels -- hence my disagreement.  My theory -- (and it is just a theory)  -- is to arm and supply them to the hilt.  We cannot put out the fire in Syria.  But by fueling that fire, we may well...(1) take the heat off the Ukraine -- and (2) wear down Putin's resources in the hopes of making him less volatile -- at least for a time.  So, contrary to the present administration, I favor action over inaction and fear that Obama will sit on his hands until the opportunity for less US military involvement has passed.

TWO:

The other player in the region that has caused no end of disruption, is Iran -- and that is the main reason we are involved in this cat fight. 

Iran has fostered terror and rebellion in almost every Arab country in the region and will continue to foment chaos until stopped.  If they destabilize the region, it allows them to gain access and influence, and eventually, control.  My personal theory is that it is an attempt to re-establish the Persian Empire -- possibly for the "sacred cause of spreading the word", but more likely for the power and wealth.  (Just imagine all that Arab oil controlled by Ayatolla-what'shisface!)  My view is that we will never come to any sort of understanding with their leadership.  I honestly think their political/religious ideology will preclude that.  Having a cleric at the head of their government precludes any sort of modern negotiation and I DO NOT -- for a New York minute -- believe that this current treaty will work.  (My second point of disagreement with the government.) 

If everything went according to plan, and everyone complied with the intent of the Western offer, then it would buy time for a potentially peaceful solution.  The Washington theory is that over the years, the anti-western hostility will erode and we will all live happily ever after -- eventually.  But we have already seen their willingness to haggle over terms and then interpret them as they see fit -- not as they were written.  The treaty, as signed (if it ever is) will be worthless and we'll be back to square one.  NO ONE -- and I mean NO ONE -- is interested in seeing them with a bomb.  As Netanyahu (sp?) pointed out, those ICBM's they're working on are not for him -- they're for the rest of the world to worry about.  Iran thinks they will tell the world how to dance once they have their arsenal in place.

Soooo...

As anyone -- even a Republican -- will admit, the situation is complicated and does not present a ready solution.  I know I don't trust the treaty -- but I don't favor a policy of inaction.  Every week we delay may prove to be costly in terms of the potentially deadly outcome.  I'm not at all sure the Republican Bombing mania is the answer, either.  I know what war is -- I've been to one.  And my old soldier's heart breaks for the young men and women we send to fight them.  So, my statement may have been confusing, but that's because I am uncertain. 

Something must be done to retard or reverse the current situation.  And somebody has to do it.  And that's why the US is involved.  When we lead, other nations feel better about following (for good or for ill, who is to say?).  Europe is nervous about the ICBM's, but they tend to sweep the facts under the carpet -- makes the peasants happier that way.  But they have all signed on to this deal because they know the only real alternative will be armed conflict (hence our troops in Kuwait -- better to build the base and infrastructure now -- if you're going to do carpentry work, best to have a hammer handy).  Israel is our only ally who is willing to face the facts and speak openly about them, and we have seen to it that "Iron Dome" will protect them in the coming months.  Failure to act swiftly only ranks second to the fatal error of not being prepared when dealing with the worst possible eventuality.  At one time, I had high hopes that Europe would band together in their Union and deal with these problems themselves, knowing that the US would support them.  But what can you expect from nations that can't decide on a currency?

My problems with the Obama administration and it's apparent lack of a foreign policy largely result from the fact that we have stumbled, muddled, backtracked, and come late to the party far too often.  We have been criticized for sticking our nose into other people's affairs, and criticized by those same people when we don't.  Our unwillingness to send our soldiers to die in yet another war everyone else wants, but will not participate in, has been branded as "retreat".  We have failed to construct a coherent foreign policy and we have failed miserably to communicate it with force and determination.  There was a phrase they used at the beginning of the last century -- "strong, moral fiber" -- and we seem to have a lack of it at the moment.  We don't need to "blow up the world" -- but punching the schoolyard bully in the nose might prevent them from doing so.

Ta --

  Edited October 13, 2015 by Dreadnought  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, that is an interesting wall of text.  Put simply, the Russians have heated up the ball and tossed it in Obama's court.  Instead of returning a sizzling drive back, Obama has made the usual mistake of going indirect by arming his favourite rebels, most of whom I wouldn't trust across a pane of spun sugar.  These arms will go somewhere, or the dump will be blown up by the Russians.  In any case, they won't wind up being used against Assad, but more likely find their way into the hands of ISIS where they will be used against everybody.

I wouldn't be too sure that Syria is a backwater.  It is next to Turkey, which happens to be a NATO member.  Even with the disruption of the latest terror bombing in Ankara, the Turks are supposed to be allies and supported without question.  The problem as I see it is that the PKK (separatists) have been fighting ISIS and we (Canada) have been training them, and now the Turks are attacking them.  Their timing is anything but ideal.  This is starting to look very much like Afghanistan internally where you have a huge bunch of warring tribes.

<aside> @Dreadnought:

I guess that was a Freudian slip in the above when you referred to the Russian currency as the Rubble instead of Rouble.  I was vastly amused.

</aside>

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Well, that is an interesting wall of text.  Put simply, the Russians have heated up the ball and tossed it in Obama's court.  Instead of returning a sizzling drive back, Obama has made the usual mistake of going indirect by arming his favourite rebels, most of whom I wouldn't trust across a pane of spun sugar.  These arms will go somewhere, or the dump will be blown up by the Russians.  In any case, they won't wind up being used against Assad, but more likely find their way into the hands of ISIS where they will be used against everybody.

I wouldn't be too sure that Syria is a backwater.  It is next to Turkey, which happens to be a NATO member.  Even with the disruption of the latest terror bombing in Ankara, the Turks are supposed to be allies and supported without question.  The problem as I see it is that the PKK (separatists) have been fighting ISIS and we (Canada) have been training them, and now the Turks are attacking them.  Their timing is anything but ideal.  This is starting to look very much like Afghanistan internally where you have a huge bunch of warring tribes.

<aside> @Dreadnought:

I guess that was a Freudian slip in the above when you referred to the Russian currency as the Rubble instead of Rouble.  I was vastly amused.

</aside>

Yo, Nonny --

Yeah -- I did get a bit long-winded, but Sabertooth seemed to want clarification on a few points.  I'll try to make this shorter.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Rouble" is a variation of "Ruble" -- either way, I still spelled it wrong.  Doesn't matter -- Marks are as far east as I ever got.  Glad you were amused, though.

I don't trust any of the rebels, Nonny.  And I imagine they aren't using dumps to store their munitions -- much too organized for rebels.  They might put it in a few small caches tucked here and there, but they travel light as a rule.  It is entirely possible that they might hand them over to Isis in the end, though.  We've already had one PR disaster by trying to train Bedouins, but they're the only game in town.  When you dabble in covert operations you hope for the best, expect the worst, and send more bullets.  Eventually someone might accidentally launch some of them at the right target.  Since there is no one that can be trusted by an established government, the whole thing is a crap-shoot to start with.

Turkey is a whole 'nother matter.  Yes -- they are Nato -- but only just.  They came near to being tossed out of the treaty organization when this whole thing started.  As a participating member, they never got out of the gate.  The only reason they dropped a few bombs on rebels is because they killed a Turkish pilot.  At the moment, they are upset because someone (PPK ?) set off a bomb on Turkish Territory.  Turkey is more interested in demonstrating that they will strike back if you mess with them.  I don't think they will engage anyone as long as the situations occur on the other side of their custom gates to anyone but a Turk.  Having been anything BUT supportive of Nato so far, I think they will continue to keep to themselves.  I do, however, suspect their up-coming elections will be interesting. 

And, you are quite correct -- their timing is ghastly!

And -- right again!  The ENTIRE Middle East is made up of a bunch of warring tribes -- further divided by Sunni & Shia factions.  So anybody dealing with these people quickly finds out it's like herding wildcats -- rarely accomplished and always dangerous.

(ROFL !!) Yeah -- maybe "Russian Rubble" was what I actually had in mind.

Ta --

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Just remember rubble is what you get when you bomb a big building.  Think of the nice pile the Kremlin or the UN Building would make.  Those of us who remember the aftermath of WW II in European cities are well acquainted with rubble, while the people who wound up behind the Iron Curtain are also quite familiar with the Rouble.  (My spell checker insists on the 'ou').  Anyway, enough English fun.

The Turkish membership in NATO is very strange.  They are the only Asian member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  I don't think the eastern end of the Med is part of the Atlantic, and I am pretty sure they were not represented in Placentia Bay when the treaty was first drafted.  In fact, at the time, I think they were an Axis power.  Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed, especially if you have read 'The Seven Pillars of Wisdom' by T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia).  I certainly wouldn't allow a Turk to stand anywhere behind me.

 

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Just remember rubble is what you get when you bomb a big building.  Think of the nice pile the Kremlin or the UN Building would make.  Those of us who remember the aftermath of WW II in European cities are well acquainted with rubble, while the people who wound up behind the Iron Curtain are also quite familiar with the Rouble.  (My spell checker insists on the 'ou').  Anyway, enough English fun.

Hidden Content

 

Yo, Nonny --

The people in East Germany were all too familiar with "rubble and Rubles".  A newly "Unified Germany" had to finish clearing away the "rubble" and start a massive rebuilding program because the Soviets were not about to lay out any "Rubles" on their subjugated, former enemies.  The Germans have done a magnificent job (so far) rebuilding Berlin.  It is once again the beautiful metropolis full of Neo-Classical architecture that it was in Wilhelm II's day. 

Your spell checker is probably programmed to go with the "English spelling" of the word. 

In college, I once got marks off on a paper because the "Prof" said I used the "English" spelling -- i.e., -- armour and armor -- favour and favor.  At the time (many, many moons ago) I was unaware of what I'd done.  Somewhat later, I came across yet another Churchillian pronouncement -- "America and Britain are two countries separated by a common language". (lol)  I still don't understand "the big deal", but Winston seemed to put it in perspective.

Morning news says the Russian embassy in Syria has been bombed.  I haven't heard that there were casualties, but it's only been about a week since Putin's planes started flying -- right?  This could be the beginning of the repercussions I predicted.  The chickens could come home to roost way before dark.

I might get some "Russian Rubble" after all! (lol)

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Yes, there is a report on BBC about someone shelling the Russian Embassy in Syria.

Wonder if the shells were made in an American war plant.  Nobody was killed.

When Assad finds out who did it, I expect both the Syrians and the Russians to show them that they won't tolerate this.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Yes, there is a report on BBC about someone shelling the Russian Embassy in Syria.

Wonder if the shells were made in an American war plant.  Nobody was killed.

When Assad finds out who did it, I expect both the Syrians and the Russians to show them that they won't tolerate this.

Yo, Nonny --

I never heard the full details on the incident -- it got surprisingly little air time here.  I suppose CNN is too busy tittering and giggling about Trump.

I have no doubt the Assad / Putin forces will demonstrate their displeasure in a loud and military manner, but that sort of action has not, so far, slowed down these "warring tribesmen".  The shelling of the embassy was the Bedouin way of telling Putin he did not impress them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Funny thing about Bedouins.  They are a migrant tribe who mostly spend their time (in the past, at least) running caravans along the Silk Road.  Mostly illiterate people who were experts at desert survival and camel husbandry.  Funny the would become artillery types.  Not in their genome.  They are definitely hunter/gatherers and not settlement oriented, so why would they take part in a war in Syria?

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Funny thing about Bedouins.  They are a migrant tribe who mostly spend their time (in the past, at least) running caravans along the Silk Road.  Mostly illiterate people who were experts at desert survival and camel husbandry.  Funny the would become artillery types.  Not in their genome.  They are definitely hunter/gatherers and not settlement oriented, so why would they take part in a war in Syria?

Sorry about that, Nonny --

I was, in fact, using the term "Bedouin" in a casual and  stereotypical fashion rather than its' proper classification.  "Arab", "rebel', or "Syrians tired of being murdered by Assad and Putin" might have been more exact --  but unnecessarily long-winded.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Funny thing about Bedouins.  They are a migrant tribe who mostly spend their time (in the past, at least) running caravans along the Silk Road.  Mostly illiterate people who were experts at desert survival and camel husbandry.  Funny the would become artillery types.  Not in their genome.  They are definitely hunter/gatherers and not settlement oriented, so why would they take part in a war in Syria?

Sorry about that, Nonny --

I was, in fact, using the term "Bedouin" in a casual and  stereotypical fashion rather than its' proper classification.  "Arab", "rebel', or "Syrians tired of being murdered by Assad and Putin" might have been more exact --  but unnecessarily long-winded.

Well, if you want another group to compare to the "rebels" in Syria, you could try the TEA party faction of the Republican Party of the United States of America.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Funny thing about Bedouins.  They are a migrant tribe who mostly spend their time (in the past, at least) running caravans along the Silk Road.  Mostly illiterate people who were experts at desert survival and camel husbandry.  Funny the would become artillery types.  Not in their genome.  They are definitely hunter/gatherers and not settlement oriented, so why would they take part in a war in Syria?

Sorry about that, Nonny --

I was, in fact, using the term "Bedouin" in a casual and  stereotypical fashion rather than its' proper classification.  "Arab", "rebel', or "Syrians tired of being murdered by Assad and Putin" might have been more exact --  but unnecessarily long-winded.

Well, if you want another group to compare to the "rebels" in Syria, you could try the TEA party faction of the Republican Party of the United States of America.

Yo, Nonny --

That was a good one -- you get 10 out of 10.

And, for the record -- I'd like to embed a few of those TEA Party boys with the front line Army units stationed over there for about 3 months and then see what they think about sending more troops into that cluster F*** !!

Failing that -- I would very much like to bomb THEM !!

 

[Sabretooth78 808]

It's a good argument for requiring service experience (preferably active combat) as a prerequisite for serving in a elected federal position.  We've had plenty of wars, so there's always plenty of experience to be gained today for tomorrow's aspiring politicians (aka useless people who couldn't make a go in any other industry on their own merits).  Who knows, maybe it might even prevent them from seeking office in the first place - perhaps prevention is the best remedy in this case, too.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"Do not, as many bloated preachers, show me the thorny way to heaven
"While they the primrose path to perdition do tread."
                     -- Will Shakespeare (From memory, and perhaps a bit paraphrased)

All those southern baptist candidates give me an acute pain.  Most of them are clearly guilty of the sin of presumption which, unrepented, will send them directly to that place below.  Unless you are a biblical scholar who knows the ancient languages cold and can read the originals, you have no business quoting from an English language edition of the scriptures which has been interpreted by many hands with many agendas.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

It's a good argument for requiring service experience (preferably active combat) as a prerequisite for serving in a elected federal position.  We've had plenty of wars, so there's always plenty of experience to be gained today for tomorrow's aspiring politicians (aka useless people who couldn't make a go in any other industry on their own merits).  Who knows, maybe it might even prevent them from seeking office in the first place - perhaps prevention is the best remedy in this case, too.

Yo, Sabertooth --

I don't think I would tamper with The Constitution in order to make military service a requirement -- though, on the whole, I agree with your line of thinking. 

Unfortunately, the requirement would still not disenfranchise the corrupt and morally bankrupt.  The pathetically wimpy service Bush "Junior" had did him absolutely no good as a character building method.  And there's even a real possibility he was found to be A.W.O.L. for movement at one time.  But lack of character did not prevent him from winning two elections -- no matter how thin (or questionable) the margin.

I do, however, favor returning to The Draft. 

Today's youth seems to grow up thinking they don't have to take orders from "the boss".  Consequently, they grow up with a complete disregard for authority (They always argue with the policeman and end up getting shot for their ignorance.)  No appreciation of the repercussions of their own actions.  (Whaddaya mean I can't have my license back?)  No understanding of loyalty and responsibility.  (Get off'a my back!  It ain't my job.)  And a depressive complex because, contrary to what their parents and teachers taught them, not everyone can be a winner.  Someone always has to lose.  (I gave the promotion to someone else -- because I know you can do better!) 

People make fun of the Army, thinking it is where you go if you can't get a job.  But they DO build character and they teach you a lot about life into the bargain.  Plus -- if you need to send someone to a war in some God-forsaken corner of the world -- that's who gets paid to go!  Everyone else gets a free ride ticket and stays at home.

'nuff said --

Ta --

  Edited October 17, 2015 by Dreadnought  

[Dreadnought 8,226]

"Do not, as many bloated preachers, show me the thorny way to heaven
"While they the primrose path to perdition do tread."
                     -- Will Shakespeare (From memory, and perhaps a bit paraphrased)

All those southern baptist candidates give me an acute pain.  Most of them are clearly guilty of the sin of presumption which, unrepented, will send them directly to that place below.  Unless you are a biblical scholar who knows the ancient languages cold and can read the originals, you have no business quoting from an English language edition of the scriptures which has been interpreted by many hands with many agendas.

Yo, Nonny --

"They have committed false report; moreover, they have spoken untruths;

secondarily, they are slanders; sixth, and lastly, they have belied a lady;

thirdly, they have verified unjust things; and to conclude, they are lying knaves."

Much Ado About Nothing

"Was ever book containing such vile matter so fairly bound?

Oh that deceit should dwell in such a gorgeous palace!

Romeo and Juliet

The first quotation is, I think, most appropriate for the far right candidates of which you speak.  They give me the same pain, and I suspect we both have it in the same location. (lol)  Just for the record -- Preacher Huckabee (who denies global warming) just bought property and built a $3M dollar home on endangered beachfront property in Florida. 

BUT -- not before ascertaining that the Federal Government had already started a program to protect the area from global sea rise!!!  So much for the poor, but honest, shepherd of the flock!

The second quotation states my complete agreement on your other point.  The vast majority of people in this country were never told, or choose to overlook, the fact that their "chosen book" came from many, many hands over many, many years.  And that the many translations have strayed quite far from the Ancient Greek origins.  ALL of the various translations were compiled by people that had their own power / political agendas to advance, and none of them are remotely close to the pure teachings of their principle source. 

Marx, I think, said that "Religion was the opiate of the Masses".  True enough.  It's just another way to control people and keep them "fat, dumb, and happy"  -- while you build an 8200 sq. ft. home in Florida !! (lol -lol -lol)

Ta, mate --

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I believe the Swiss still have compulsory military service for the young, but I can't think of anywhere else.  Of course, when I was in high school the Korean War was on, and if I had graduated a year earlier, I probably would have gotten a case of Gone to Korea, a lot of my friends did.  We didn't have a draft at the time, but jobs were scarce unless you were willing to get shot at.

Those of us, not many left these days, who were born before 1940 have grown up through the war years, rationing, at least one parent in the service, etc.  I distinctly remember picking up my father from the train in 1946 when he was discharged from the army.  By then I was nine years old.

Kids in those days didn't have any luxuries.  We made toy guns out of a pair of clothes pins (washing was dried on outside lines, even in the winter).  We made up our own games, often scenarios like allies vs. axis. 

Things got interesting when Russia switched sides and even more so when the Italians did.  We didn't have any Russian neighbours but we had lots of families that had escaped the grip of the USSR, and there was a big isolated Italian community in our town.  I went to high school with a lot of them.  One of the most interesting was a Polish kid whose father had been murdered by the Russians in the Katyn forest.  He was a very good cartoonist and I've often wondered what happened to him.

And yes, I was in the Army Cadet Corps, and it wasn't for fun.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

I believe the Swiss still have compulsory military service for the young, but I can't think of anywhere else. 

Yo, Nonny --

Israel ?

I know The Draft is an unpopular concept -- and I have to admit -- there are a lot of "downsides" to it.

But "Young America" lacks a great deal when it comes to dedication and loyalty.  We don't have any of that -- "old school tie, or regimental tie" -- sort of thing in this country, so we seem to be adrift when it comes to deciding where our loyalties are (or should be).  The US needs some sort of institution or tradition that breeds "character" into us. 

Churchill once said -- "The Americans always do the right thing.  After they have tried everything else."  I don't think we do that any more.  We no longer seem to have the courage and willingness to sacrifice in the name of "the right thing".   Most things in this country are driven by greed -- not by compassion and loyalty, or even an obligation to our fellow man.  The youth of today seem to have no "moral compass".  At least the Army teaches you to "man-up" and look out for your fellow soldier.  Perhaps I'm just looking for something simple to solve the problems inherent in the oligarchic / capitalist society we have become.

Your entry made me think back to the days of my youth, when the world was a much simpler place.  But then, it was no more simple, and no more safe than it is today.  We were just younger and didn't know what was really going on -- did we?

I see you have another "Trudeau".  And I imagine Canada will be doing an "about-turn" shortly.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Yup, we've had another case of Trudeaumania.  The Liberals are so close to centre that there is hardly any deviation.  All that right-wing fear-thy-neighbour crap should go out the window pretty quickly now.  Some of the police-state garbage from the last government should disappear soon.

Justin said he would order our planes in Iraq home.  No more air strikes by Canadian pilots, but we will continue to train cadres over there.  I think this is a good move because air-strikes have too much danger of hitting the wrong target, and the collateral damage is too high.  We need to train more local boots to be good on the ground.

The world has never been simple.  Our view was different because communications were either very slow or non-existent.  Now we have the world Internet and it has changed everything.

Bilingual pun: Justin Trudeau -- Just in le trou d'eau -- just in the water hole.  *splash*  the water is cold.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I would like to see the UN strengthen from a weak confederacy consisting of heads of state to a 3 Branch Federal Representative Democracy.

 

The Executive Branch will then consist of the heads of state and heads of government but with their electoral power directly tied to number of votes they can prove to have received (meaning the power of any government on the global scale depends on low (or falsified) voter fraud, high voter turnout, high population and low number of political parties). To make things easy and to officially exclude micronations, an electoral point is granted for every 10,000 votes a leader receives. If the head of state is not elected (such as a king or queen) and the head of government is elected by members of government, the electoral points granted to the head of government is equal to the combined number of votes for the members of government that voted for the head of government, then rounded to the nearest 10,000 (with 6,000 being the cut-off to round up instead of 9,000 or 5,000); politicians automatically count as voting for themselves.

 

The Judicial Branch will consist of lawyers and judges appointed or approved by the executive branch. These are the legal experts who can help interpret treaties and submit feedback when a treaty is inconsistent.

 

All the committees will get grouped under the Legislative Branch with the general assembly members voted in by global citizens within their constituencies. As @A Nonny Moose suggested, there should be an upper house based off merit that can review what the general assembly does and has final say. I certainly didn't want a Senate! I thought the UN could make do with just 1 house but Nonny Mose is right.

Each legislator can have a cabinet, just as a president has a cabinet. However, no one can serve more than 1 position (such as cabinet for legislator, executive, and judge). The power of the legislative branch is limited to drafting international treaties, such as trade, war and space exploration, that must be signed by those affected to have direct power over them. These treaties can also set (potentially binding) price ceilings and price floors on anything that can be exchanged but price ceilings must be positive and price floors must be non-infinite. Why might I mention this? Because many constituencies in effect put a price ceiling of 0 for some things and an infinite price floor for other things, both tend to be biological-related. If there are any nations who want to trade these things, they should not be explicitly forbidden from doing so (this is where the whole "treaty must be signed to take effect" thing comes in as well).

A global citizen is any adult human granted a certain minimum amount of rights, to be determined by the UN. Any adult can potentially register to become a global citizen within a constituency, granting them voting power in the UN. That means that completely non-democratic dictatorships get no real power in the UN but large governments without public elections could grant all their politicians global citizenship. Corporations and other non-governmental organizations become constituencies but all constituencies must allow its members to vote for important aspects concerning constituencies. Constituencies require at least 10,000 registered voters to have any power (electoral points), with each additional additional 10,000 granting another electoral point. Global citizens who vote in an UN election become "super voters," worth 3-10 times (as defined by the UN) as much as registered voters (global citizen or not) who do not vote in a UN election. China and Russia might be the most powerful nations in this new UN though it is likely that Australia, Canada, and the USA will be in the top 5. Any global citizen can vote in elections for any constituencies he belongs to but cannot be counted more than once in any election. All constituencies who wish to have members vote for UN elections must provide physical locations to vote. Global citizens get documentation that proves their identity (including photograph and fingerprints), which must be scanned before voting. The voting booth must be accessible and anonymous like a modern voting booth (no electronic recording devices allowed, including personal electronic devices with the ability to record), with a receipt that only says citizen # (not name) "voted," "abstained," or "no confidence" for each election qualified to vote for. All candidates and write-ins are considered under a generic "voted" for obvious security reasons. If a global citizen votes multiple times across multiple constituencies, overlaps are removed and if they vote differently for any election, the 1st non-abstinent vote is the only one that counts.

 

The constitution of this new, powerful UN could be based roughly off the Constitution of the United States of America, adapted to a planetary government, with all definitions put in amendments. These definitions include powers, qualifications, and rights. Ratification of this new constitution follows current procedures (whatever those may be), which means dictatorships will try to block it.

  Edited October 21, 2015 by OcramSeattle  
clarity of content and formatting

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Marco, your wall of text is a difficult read.  Did you ever hear the words "white space", "paragraph".  All that run-on stuff disinclines me to read it at all.

In any case, the tripartite government model you are proposing in the style of the United States has already shown itself to be a bust.  What is needed is a bicameral system similar to a parliament where elder statesmen sit in an upper house to review the decisions of the general assembly.  Appointment to the upper house (security council) should be by merit and not by treaty nor popularity.  The time for the Atlantic Charter appointments has passed, and a new order is needed.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Has Benjamin Netanyahu lost it?

The gentleman in question has shuffled off this mortal coil.  The Holocaust authority in Israel denies this statement.  Time to retire, Mr. Netanyahu?

[Sabretooth78 808]

Calling him a yahoo is right.  Too many hotheads on both sides of the issue.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I clarified my post above. For those who just want short boiled-down lists.

1. UN should be stronger

2. Executive Branch consists of leaders of constituencies with their power determined by votes received

3. A vote abstaining does not count and electoral points are granted for every 10,000 voters saying yes. Constituencies and leaders require at least 1 electoral point to hold any power at all.

4. A global citizen voting in a current UN election is worth more than a registered voter (global citizen or not) not voting in a current UN election

5. The General Assembly of the Legislative Branch consists of democratically elected legislators, voted for by Global Citizens. Terms are 2 years long, elections staggered (so half will run one year and the other the next), and terms limited to 20 years.

6. The Upper Assembly of the Legislative Branch consists of qualified professionals, not voted for in general elections.

7. The Legislative Branch can only draft treaties regarding international agreements, which only have power over signatory constituencies.

8. The judicial branch consists of qualified legal experts appointed by the executive branch

9. Constituencies can overlap but any global citizen can only vote once for any election (politician or issue). If a global citizen votes in multiple constituencies, only the first vote (not abstaining) in each election counts. No punishment for voting multiple times.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well done, Marco.  A little white space always helps.

What you are proposing is a World Federation.  Once you get a democratic(?) vote in there for the constituents, you are trying to herd cats, but good luck with it.

[matias93 7,535]

I clarified my post above. For those who just want short boiled-down lists.

1. UN should be stronger

2. Executive Branch consists of leaders of constituencies with their power determined by votes received

3. A vote abstaining does not count and electoral points are granted for every 10,000 voters saying yes. Constituencies and leaders require at least 1 electoral point to hold any power at all.

4. A global citizen voting in a current UN election is worth more than a registered voter (global citizen or not) not voting in a current UN election

5. The General Assembly of the Legislative Branch consists of democratically elected legislators, voted for by Global Citizens. Terms are 2 years long, elections staggered (so half will run one year and the other the next), and terms limited to 20 years.

6. The Upper Assembly of the Legislative Branch consists of qualified professionals, not voted for in general elections.

7. The Legislative Branch can only draft treaties regarding international agreements, which only have power over signatory constituencies.

8. The judicial branch consists of qualified legal experts appointed by the executive branch

9. Constituencies can overlap but any global citizen can only vote once for any election (politician or issue). If a global citizen votes in multiple constituencies, only the first vote (not abstaining) in each election counts. No punishment for voting multiple times.

Let me analyse it (and omit my harsh tone, linguistic barrier...)

1. Is almost impossible for UN to be stronger, ceteris paribus, because is not a real political institution, but a bunch of articulated treaties, kept united by a favourable statu quo.
2. As Noony said, your proposal implies to create a world federation, which is basically impracticable: not only for logistical reasons, but also because States articulate around nations, and plurinational federations are short-lived and ill-fated (look at Yugoslavia as a handy example). What is more, current States wouldn't accept any disminishing of their current power in exchange of promises; if some states did it before (for example, in the EU), their actual situation is a caution to the rest: it doesn't work.
3. If the threshold is 10,000 votes and current States are giving an important part of their sovereignity to a third party, what would restrict a lot of barely-over-10,000 States to fight for independence and direct representation?
4. That is too hard to considerate in a bulleted list. Countries have been created for discussions about that.
5. One of the Parkinson Laws states that councils decrease in importance when increase in membership, generating super-councils formed by leaders of internal blocks. The opposite alternative is to keep the number of representatives in a reasonable number, but that would imply that millions of people would be electing just one congressperson, rendering their votes basically null. If the Europarliament has one of the lowest turnouts of the world, this assembly would break that record for long.
6. Ah, thou beloved technocracy, so venerated and vapuleated at the same time. People love experts when are saying what their inexpert ideology wants to hear. Historically, technocrats hadn't been empowered by democratic mandate, because it implies to surrender a part of their political rights to an uncontrolable council; usually, technocrats are associated with authoritarian regimes, and for that, they couldn't be 'neutral' nor 'objective', but servile to the regime ideology.
7. This is basically the same problem of the League of Nations: if the effects of legislation only affects signataries, no one would want to sign, because there are alternative ways of negotiate without so much compromizing and surrendering of sovereignty. 
8. Combine what I said about technocracy with a massive concentration of power in the executive and you have a rubber-stamp legislative, that cannot even force its resolutions to non signataries.
9. You would need a great computational system to order all of those possible combinations. What is more, every electoral system had its vulnerabilities, and just one irregularity could render the whole process as null, with the consequence of an unpredicted power vaccum and irregular dispute for it.

TL;DR: The European Union is barely sustaining and most of its members are trying to bring it down. And that is a small an 'civilized' continent. You don't want to see the whole world in that kind of mess.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

WOW !!!

You guys been busy !!!

Ocram means well, but it is clear he is an idealist and not a non-linear thinker!

This would be a perfect experiment for a political science classroom!  This would be no end of fun!!! 

But the concept won't work -- and never will (perhaps only in Star Trek - lol).

League Of Nations -- failed -- because Japan simply walked out.  (There were many other reasons, but that was the most obvious and final one.)

United Nations -- fails -- because the Security Council is hopelessly deadlocked and they have no army or money with which to enforce any decisions they might actually reach.

Futuristic Federation -- will fail -- because (as pointed out) NO nation will (willingly or otherwise) sacrifice their "sacred self-interest" or their sovereign prerogatives.

So much for World Brotherhood --

Ta, mates -- got a city to build.

[matias93 7,535]

WOW !!!

You guys been busy !!!

Ocram means well, but it is clear he is an idealist and not a non-linear thinker!

This would be a perfect experiment for a political science classroom!  This would be no end of fun!!! 

But the concept won't work -- and never will (perhaps only in Star Trek - lol).

League Of Nations -- failed -- because Japan simply walked out.  (There were many other reasons, but that was the most obvious and final one.)

United Nations -- fails -- because the Security Council is hopelessly deadlocked and they have no army or money with which to enforce any decisions they might actually reach.

Futuristic Federation -- will fail -- because (as pointed out) NO nation will (willingly or otherwise) sacrifice their "sacred self-interest" or their sovereign prerogatives.

So much for World Brotherhood --

Ta, mates -- got a city to build.

In fact, a lot of previously unimaginable federations have been built and stay firm up to the present, all thanks to the existence of a common external foe¹.

The US would be an obvious example, so I will talk you about Switzerland instead: the swiss had no common nationality, nor identity, nor relevant common interests, their federation emerges uniquely because of the strategic advantage that emerges of warring together against the empires that sorround their territories. Anyway, the current Helvetic Confederation is clearly not just a war aliance, and the reason is the Sonderbund War, their own seccesion war between southern² conservative cantons and northern liberal ones. The liberal states, after winning the brief war against the seccesionists, imposed stricter rules against internal alliances, effectively giving the central government and legislature a monopoly of legitimate violence, the key element of an stable State.

Of course, humanity had no common external foe (yet), and to fight against a common internal foe implies a series of insolvable problems and does not generate enough unity to allow a world federation to emerge.

__________________________________

1: I used the term 'foe' instead of 'enemy' following Schmitt (1932) in his definition of politics as the existential confrontation of friends against foes. The word 'foe' has a different linguistical root than 'enemy', and represents a different idea: foe-ness is precedent to friendness, in political terms.

2: The north-south divide in the Sunderbund war is not as clear as the words suggest, but the artificial paralelism with the US civil war pays for the error.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I clarified my post above.

[short boiled-down list]

Let me analyse it (and omit my harsh tone, linguistic barrier...)

1. Is almost impossible for UN to be stronger, ceteris paribus, because is not a real political institution, but a bunch of articulated treaties, kept united by a favourable statu quo.
2. As Noony said, your proposal implies to create a world federation, which is basically impracticable: not only for logistical reasons, but also because States articulate around nations, and plurinational federations are short-lived and ill-fated (look at Yugoslavia as a handy example). What is more, current States wouldn't accept any disminishing of their current power in exchange of promises; if some states did it before (for example, in the EU), their actual situation is a caution to the rest: it doesn't work.
3. If the threshold is 10,000 votes and current States are giving an important part of their sovereignity to a third party, what would restrict a lot of barely-over-10,000 States to fight for independence and direct representation?
4. That is too hard to considerate in a bulleted list. Countries have been created for discussions about that.
5. One of the Parkinson Laws states that councils decrease in importance when increase in membership, generating super-councils formed by leaders of internal blocks. The opposite alternative is to keep the number of representatives in a reasonable number, but that would imply that millions of people would be electing just one congressperson, rendering their votes basically null. If the Europarliament has one of the lowest turnouts of the world, this assembly would break that record for long.
6. Ah, thou beloved technocracy, so venerated and vapuleated at the same time. People love experts when are saying what their inexpert ideology wants to hear. Historically, technocrats hadn't been empowered by democratic mandate, because it implies to surrender a part of their political rights to an uncontrolable council; usually, technocrats are associated with authoritarian regimes, and for that, they couldn't be 'neutral' nor 'objective', but servile to the regime ideology.
7. This is basically the same problem of the League of Nations: if the effects of legislation only affects signataries, no one would want to sign, because there are alternative ways of negotiate without so much compromizing and surrendering of sovereignty. 
8. Combine what I said about technocracy with a massive concentration of power in the executive and you have a rubber-stamp legislative, that cannot even force its resolutions to non signataries.
9. You would need a great computational system to order all of those possible combinations. What is more, every electoral system had its vulnerabilities, and just one irregularity could render the whole process as null, with the consequence of an unpredicted power vaccum and irregular dispute for it.

TL;DR: The European Union is barely sustaining and most of its members are trying to bring it down. And that is a small an 'civilized' continent. You don't want to see the whole world in that kind of mess.

1. The League of Nations was succeeded by the UN. This global federation would be the successor to the UN. It won't have much impact on Earth but it would render trade blocs, cartels, and defense alliances obsolete (without removing them). Space is where it really shines. I only mentioned it once in my full post. A global federation might never occur within our lifetimes but it will likely happen before space colonization begins. My enumerated list was exactly what I said it was, a tl;dr summary.

2. It would be a rather weak global federation and would require further amendments that may never be ratified to impede sovereignty but it would step in to settle disputes and agreements between different constituencies (which may or may not be independent nations, as I articulated in my full post). 

3. The World Federation cannot take sovereignty but it can indeed transfer it. Any constituency with at least 10,000 global citizens agreeing can have power in the World Federation. What prevents a lot of small constituencies from gaining sovereignty and direct representation is legal formation (they must be legally recognized as parties capable of making trade agreements with other already recognized constituencies), voter participation (10,000 global citizens agreeing is equal to 1 electoral point), and veto power (constituencies are not bound by treaties they don't sign and can only be indirectly punished with treaties (such as embargo or war) signed by other constituencies).

4. I described a global citizen in my full post.

5. The theoretical maximum number of legislators is the number of global citizens divided by 10,000. The theoretical minimum is the number of recognized constituencies with at least 1 electoral point.

6. The Upper Council are not elected in the general election but must be approved by the general assembly of legislators (simple majority should do). These technocrats must prove they are qualified with documentation and adequate field experience. They are much like the judicial attorneys but with different qualifications.

7. The treaties cannot control anything within the borders of constituencies that do not sign but they can control international territory (i.e. oceans and space). While no one can directly control what happens within sovereign nations, it would only take a true majority vote with at least 2 other sovereign nations drafting a valid treaty signed by them to in effect ban the trade of some contraband across their borders and international waters. For example, they can set the international price ceiling of human hearts to be equivalent to the lowest price that can be payed with the currencies by the signatory nations (so the penny worth the most out of all the currencies of the signatories) or the price floor of an indentured servant at the value equal to the highest common bond value all signatory nations had ever sold.

8. The power of the executive branch depends on democracy. Sure, you could have millions of constituencies represented but their leaders can only have any power if at least 10,000 global citizens voted for them and every additional 10k grant an additional electoral point. Leaders with at least 10k votes in local elections get a "reserved seat at the table" but that only lets them talk. These leaders could behave like lobbyists but they don't have any more power than lobbyists. Did I forget to mention that any constituency with at least 10k global citizens registered as members gets some degree of recognition by the UN? A multinational corporation can have many stockholders, have factories around the world, and be registered with headquarters within sovereign nations. That means Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, and the Vatican could all potentially be represented in the World Federation. All Corporate Executives and Religious Leaders get "reserved seats at the table" if they can prove at least 10k local votes (and a global citizen counts as multiple [determined by the UN] local votes).

9. Each World Federation voting center would be given 1 specific IP address from which to send the final data from elections. Each voter must present a valid ID registered with the World Federation (complete with photo and fingerprints) in order to cast a vote (the ID could be casually glanced at by election security then scanned at the voting machine). Each ballot casts gets a receipt. The receipt has no name and each election line gets only 1 of 3 options "voted," "abstained," or "no confidence" with the citizen ID standing in for a credit card number. The voter gets to keep 1 copy and another copy is automatically printed and stored in a vault. The election data is treated EXACTLY like credit card data with extra security features, better protected paper trails (burned after election), and fewer points of failure. After election day, the semi-anonymous 3 category data is sent to the central server. All discrepancies are handled, registering duplicate election data (when the same global citizen votes in the same categories in the same election multiple times) with the first non-abstaining vote counted and the rest to be thrown out. After these preliminary preparatory calculations are handled, the anonymous election data with the specific choices is sent over and calculated. That shouldn't be too difficult.

Here is a hypothetical (obviously) example: Citizen #xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (which can be looked up to be Marco Meza) voted in Seattle, Austin, and Los Angeles. He abstained from 1 mutual election category, voted once in 19 election categories, and duplicate voted in 5 categories. Delete abstained vote category and subsequent votes from the 5 duplicated categories. ... later ... Positions and Issues xyz received abc# number of votes from Seattle, Austin, and Los Angeles.