World Affairs

[AkemiAzula 280]

The thing your world federation is missing is the jedi. Without enforcement of laws, however legitimate and democratic they be, you have a debating society and taxpayers money being wasted to give the society its silver service dinners.

The only way a global federation can work is if it is armed or has the control of all armies.

This both requires the 'common foe' or unlikely mutual convenience to create the federation in the first place and the member nations continuing faith/dependence/convenience with it.

At the very least it needs an army as large/effective as its greatest member state, and in order to be effective against guerrillas and jihadis etc it must be an army that can fight in versatile ways not just a classic army.

Of course in future cyberterror is likely to replace the quaint bombs and guns of today.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

OK, that's enough.  A world state will never happen as long as the word patriot is anything other than an archaism.  National identity will prevail and this is why the EU is in trouble and will always be as long as it continues to exist other than a customs and currency union.  Overall, other than fiscally at the moment it has no clout. 

Before you go roaring off after high blown principles, you need to understand why in Italy, for example, a man from the next village is called a foreigner ('straniero').  I like to use Italy as an example because I have spent a lot of time studying its history, and so it is familiar to me but I am sure there are other examples throughout Europe and Asia. 

The United States of America is another example of why a world federation is not going to happen any time soon.  The not-so-united states often can't agree among themselves on how to conduct interstate trade, let alone get along with each other.  The U.S. civil war still rages in some parts of the country even though it has been 'pacified'.  Johnny Reb is still there manifested by the TEA party faction of the G.O.P.  This is probably the principal reason why it takes them two years to elect a president.  Elections should be short and quickly done, not protracted ad nauseam.  There is too much to be done to waste time on lengthy, complex election processes.

So, Marco my friend, those polisci ideas are all very well, but I am afraid they are also strictly academic.  Watch what happens in Ottawa for the next two weeks if you want to see an exercise in realpolitik.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I never said this World Federation should happen tomorrow. It just needs to happen before the galactic population exceeds 10 billion (humans) across at least 2 permanently populated planets.

 

The World Federation military on Earth would barely be any stronger than the current UN peacekeepers. The World Federation would have no more powers of taxation than the UN has now (unless they amend their constitution). The Executive branch would get no money from the World Federation, they would have to rely on the money of their own constituencies. The legislators and judges could earn 4th Quintile Scandinavian level wages for themselves but pay out of their own pockets for cabinets. Paying the World Federation would mostly be done like Foreign Aid, where constituencies decide whether and how much to send.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The only thing that could possibly cause a world federation of any sort to occur would be a clear and present outside threat.  Yes, I mean "little green men" will ill intentions.  Can you imagine North Korea joining such a federation?  It is to laugh.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Watch what happens in Ottawa for the next two weeks if you want to see an exercise in realpolitik.

"Act in haste --

Repent at leisure". 

I do hope someone has explained "Weltpolitik" to Trudeau II.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

The only thing that could possibly cause a world federation of any sort to occur would be a clear and present outside threat.  Yes, I mean "little green men" will ill intentions.  Can you imagine North Korea joining such a federation?  It is to laugh.

Well, "a clear and present outside threat" would obviously be extraterrestrial (not of Earth) but the aliens need not be "little green men;" they could be Martians descended from Earthlings. Ponder that and reread what I already wrote. "Aliens from Mars" would need to seemingly pose as big a threat to Earthling politicians as "Aliens from Mexico" seem to pose to certain Conservatives.

 

North Korea and the like would have no power in the World Federation and I'm pretty sure they have no power to block its formation. As I already explained, the World Federation would have no power over sovereign nations that don't sign treaties.

  Edited October 23, 2015 by OcramSeattle  
Dreadnought, I fixed it!

[Dreadnought 8,226]

The only thing that could possibly cause a world federation of any sort to occur would be a clear and present outside threat.  Yes, I mean "little green men" will ill intentions.  Can you imagine North Korea joining such a federation?  It is to laugh.

"Aliens from Mars" would need to seemingly pose as big a threat to Earthling politicians as "Aliens from Mexico" seem to pose to certain conservative Southerners.

Not that I have any particular problem with our neighbors south of the border --

While Donald Trump and John McCain may be conservative -- they are anything but Southern.  Let's not pick on the Southerners -- they don't even like Yankees!

  Edited October 22, 2015 by Dreadnought  

[Sabretooth78 808]

John McCain a conservative?  Don't say such things about conservatives!

I'm still convinced he died during the run-up to the 2000 GOP nomination when after being a complete thorn in GWB's side.  I honestly liked him back then, and I tended more to the left than I do now (chalk it up to youthful ignorance).  Then somewhere along the line he suddenly rolled over and effectively remained a lap dog from then on.  And then has the gall to call himself a "maverick".  Not to mention his consistently more erratic behavior as time goes on makes me wonder a.) if he's seriously lost his mind (there was a similar near-precedent in the Reagan cabinet) and worse, b.) if everybody else in Arizona has also lost their mind in continually electing that corpse.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The Canadian Cabinet is due to be sworn in November 4th.  This will be just fascinating considering that the new majority contains a fairly good cross-section of the Canadian Mosaic.  For more news, tune in to the Canadian Politics thread.

Meanwhile, the Yanks have lost a soldier in the ISIS conflict for the first time.  A minor escalation, and maybe an accident.  Or is it a forerunner...

[Dreadnought 8,226]

John McCain a conservative?  Don't say such things about conservatives!

I'm still convinced he died during the run-up to the 2000 GOP nomination when after being a complete thorn in GWB's side.  I honestly liked him back then, and I tended more to the left than I do now (chalk it up to youthful ignorance).  Then somewhere along the line he suddenly rolled over and effectively remained a lap dog from then on.  And then has the gall to call himself a "maverick".  Not to mention his consistently more erratic behavior as time goes on makes me wonder a.) if he's seriously lost his mind (there was a similar near-precedent in the Reagan cabinet) and worse, b.) if everybody else in Arizona has also lost their mind in continually electing that corpse.

Yo, Sabretooth --

Yes -- Trump and McCain run too much to the "center" for the core of the Republican Party.  Trump, of course, is a a joke -- but he may end up with the nomination.  I can't see anyone honestly voting for Carson -- a lot of talk, but not much substance, so far.  But it might suit the Republicans to run their own version of Obama. 

Trump offends the core of The Party because he is a businessman -- he knows you have to "give a little to get a little".  That's how deals are made.

McCain offends The Party because he's been a politician for a long time.  He knows you have to "cross the isle" to get deals done.

The Party is mightily offended because they don't want to "give" ANYTHING, and they don't want to share credit by "crossing the isle".  I think they are shooting themselves in the foot.

I am a registered Republican (1979 -- Reagan) -- but I chalk that up to MY youthful ignorance! (lol-lol-lol)  (Unless you're 25 and plunking 10% of your gross income into a private retirement account not tied to Wall Street -- you will understand when you get old and it's too late to change!)

I now consider myself a Liberal Conservative and do not pledge my support to any party -- because I can't find anything I like much about either of them.  (Bernie Sanders is looking real good.  He almost constitutes a 3d Party all by himself!)

For the record:  I dislike Republicans trying to tell women what to do with their own bodies, and I dislike Democrats fooling about with health insurance without fixing THE problem -- it's too damned expensive! 

I have always liked John McCain because he speaks the language of a military man.  He does not always say things I like, but he says them with an honest conviction that I admire.  I think it's my connection to the military -- it breeds a certain kind of person -- and we gravitate toward "like minds".

I, too, once thought him a man I could rely upon -- especially when he was gouging GWB!!  But "THE PARTY" told McCain to lay-off "Georgie" if he ever wanted to see a run at the White House (hence the "roll-over" you speak of).  Well -- McCain backed off, Georgie won, and then plunged the country into the worst global financial disaster since The Great Depression -- all for the benefit of Georgie's oligarch buddies.

When it was McCain's turn at the White House -- he started taking pot-shots at Social Security (which I paid into for 45 years).  And then chose Palin as his VP!!!!!  He lost me right there.  I dropped him flatter than a Prom Queen's ex-boyfriend!!!  I decided that if he could make that choice -- then he was capable of making some very bad decisions on some very important things.  Not White House material.  (Don't get me wrong -- I'm not the least enamored of the current occupant of the White House!)

Yeah -- I liked old John.  And he still shows brief flashes of integrity (very important in my mind).  He did have the decency to defend Obama's birthright and religion against the old woman in one of those Arizona "town hall" meetings.

Like you, I'm beginning to wonder just what in H*** goes on out in Arizona.  I get the feeling it's full of retirees looking for sun and dry heat to help their arthritis -- or redneck gun militias hiding from the ATF boys out in the desert. 

Ta, mate --

  Edited October 23, 2015 by Dreadnought  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think you guys are in the wrong thread.  Why not take all this to the American Politics thread, hmmm?

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I think you guys are in the wrong thread.  Why not take all this to the American Politics thread, hmmm?

I apologize for seeding the derailment of this topic with 1 word (southerners) at the end of my post about Martians being a good way to initiate the formation of the World Federation. I edited it out shortly after the first response and the topic fully derailed afterward. The World Federation could prevent WWIII or it could arise from it (or the aforementioned Martian invaders).

  Edited October 24, 2015 by OcramSeattle  

[AkemiAzula 280]

I doubt Mars will become an America or Australia. Imagine a war of Martian independence. A folly if ever there was one.

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Don't bet on the Martians.  I am more worried about Boskone.  The zwilniks have got pretty good penetration in society already.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

I think you guys are in the wrong thread.  Why not take all this to the American Politics thread, hmmm?

Don't worry, Nonny --

We left you plenty of room to discuss the Klingon Federation.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Wrong guess.  You need to step back to the future and read the series by E. E. Smith that starts with Triplanetary.  Problem with kids these days is they don't think that science fiction isn't old hat.  There is nothing new under the sun.  Try a dose of Jules Verne sometime.  If you think some of the stuff in Star Wars was fantastic, try some of the Lensmen.  Worsel of Velantia for example.  BTW, the Smith stuff is a quick read.  Kind of like a penny dreadful, but with some almost science thrown in.  Comes complete with an FTL drive.

Meanwhile, other than Bashar Al Assad visiting the Kremlin, things seem to be relatively quiet.  The west coast of Mexico does seem to be having a little problem with the weather, but that probably should be taken up in the Global Warming thread.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Wrong guess.  You need to step back to the future and read the series by E. E. Smith that starts with Triplanetary.  Problem with kids these days is they don't think that science fiction isn't old hat.  There is nothing new under the sun.  Try a dose of Jules Verne sometime.  If you think some of the stuff in Star Wars was fantastic, try some of the Lensmen.  Worsel of Velantia for example.  BTW, the Smith stuff is a quick read.  Kind of like a penny dreadful, but with some almost science thrown in.  Comes complete with an FTL drive.

Meanwhile, other than Bashar Al Assad visiting the Kremlin, things seem to be relatively quiet.  The west coast of Mexico does seem to be having a little problem with the weather, but that probably should be taken up in the Global Warming thread.

I was big into SciFi at one time -- but that was waaaay back in the days of Bradbury's stuff and several other authors.  Jules Verne has always been a favorite -- quite visionary for his time.  But we should probably keep this in the Science Fiction thread...or maybe the Jules Verne Thread.

No need to apologize, Nonny -- I thought Global Warming qualified as World Affairs.  Can't imagine who else would be concerned.  If the BBC covers it, then I figure it's good to go.

But this is a very broad subject heading -- should be plenty of room in the big tent for everyone. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The initial intent of this thread was to cover things in the world that didn't have their own separate category, but what the heck.  It's a good spot for general conversation too.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

The initial intent of this thread was to cover things in the world that didn't have their own separate category, but what the heck.  It's a good spot for general conversation too.

HEAR ! HEAR !

I quite agree with the Right Honorable Gentleman from Ontario.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

However, if we really want to go off track from world affairs, there is always the main list at https://community.simtropolis.com/forums/forum/6-general-off-topic/ of which this thread is in a sub-forum.  New topics can always be raised over there, and it probably has more followers.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Just a quick comment --

I was watching a "Frontline" presentation last night -- it's one of those programs where the "investigative journalist" goes around asking a bunch of questions and trying to get people to tell him what they think.  I forget the guy's name, but he went into Syria to try to document the undoubted misery there.  The journalist is in the mostly destroyed city of Homs and he asks a young Arab man who is responsible for this destruction.

Now -- I could say that the young man is loyal to Assad.  But it could also be that he knows he's on camera and will only speak good of the Assad regime -- hard to say, either way.  So -- his loyalty may be questionable. 

But what simply stupefied me -- (it was like being hit between the eyes with a ball bat) -- is that he blames the USA because the USA supports Isis!!! 

The young man conveniently ignores all of the public statements to the contrary.  He conveniently ignores all the public conflict against Isis being waged in the region by the USA and the Coalition Allies.  And -- he conveniently ignores, or is ignorant of,  the fact that Isis does not have aircraft and the USA has resisted bombing targets within Syria. 

Apparently, the guy has been told (by Assad supporters) that the USA and Isis have teamed up to drop barrel bombs on his neighborhood!  And -- he either believes this drivel, or is willing to repeat the lie knowing that people desperate to blame someone else for their misery will believe it.  Or -- the guy's on Assad's payroll and was following the journalist around to provide "party-line" answers for the camera.

No matter the answer -- there are people in the world with enough hate and ignorance in them to believe this tripe!

What CAN you do FOR people like this ???

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Nothing.  The propaganda from each side is damning the other side, and it will say anything.

For that matter, how do we know which side to believe?  We know our world is full of spin doctors.

  Edited October 29, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  

[Sabretooth78 808]

There may be/have been an ounce of truth to what he says; as for instance you will never convince me that we (or at least just the CIA) didn't originally create/fund daesh either explicitly (see also John McCain) or through our usual misadventures and/or blowback.  The question I have is has that material support finally completely dried up.  An article not too long ago (I believe it as a BBC link posted in the other thread) said no.

Although I do agree with you, and from the sounds of it I'm going to assume the interviewee isn't approaching it from the same semantic viewpoint.

(Aside:  Just to make sure I had the story straight - as I don't work for the media, after all - I typed "John McCain" into the browser search bar which on this work PC uses Yahoo search.  The suggestion "John McCain isis" was the 8th listed, above "John McCain pow story", which was 10th.  The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth may have hurt John Kerry, but didn't help old Johnny it would seem.)

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Just a quick comment --

I was watching a "Frontline" presentation last night -- it's one of those programs where the "investigative journalist" goes around asking a bunch of questions and trying to get people to tell him what they think.  I forget the guy's name, but he went into Syria to try to document the undoubted misery there.  The journalist is in the mostly destroyed city of Homs and he asks a young Arab man who is responsible for this destruction.

Now -- I could say that the young man is loyal to Assad.  But it could also be that he knows he's on camera and will only speak good of the Assad regime -- hard to say, either way.  So -- his loyalty may be questionable. 

But what simply stupefied me -- (it was like being hit between the eyes with a ball bat) -- is that he blames the USA because the USA supports Isis!!! 

The young man conveniently ignores all of the public statements to the contrary.  He conveniently ignores all the public conflict against Isis being waged in the region by the USA and the Coalition Allies.  And -- he conveniently ignores, or is ignorant of,  the fact that Isis does not have aircraft and the USA has resisted bombing targets within Syria. 

Apparently, the guy has been told (by Assad supporters) that the USA and Isis have teamed up to drop barrel bombs on his neighborhood!  And -- he either believes this drivel, or is willing to repeat the lie knowing that people desperate to blame someone else for their misery will believe it.  Or -- the guy's on Assad's payroll and was following the journalist around to provide "party-line" answers for the camera.

No matter the answer -- there are people in the world with enough hate and ignorance in them to believe this tripe!

What CAN you do FOR people like this ???

 

Does that mean the USA has resisted bombing ISIS targets in Syria?

Whatever the case the USA (more like CIA/Mossad) has been arming moderate rebels who have all gone to ISIS, Al Nursa and other Islamic militant groups. ISIS arose from supposedly moderate rebel groups who were really just terrorists and extremists all along.

Also the year long campaign by the USA, and its coalition allies, against ISIS has done zilch because in that time ISIS gained more territory, set up more installations like ammo dumps, communication centres and regional headquarters. The punchline is how ISIS were still travelling around in their pickup truck / Humvee convoys which should have been blown up within a few days of the USA/NATO aerial campaign.

Enter the Russians and suddenly ISIS is being decimated. Russians provide the air support and advanced weaponry, Hezbollah, the Syrian Army and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard do the ground warfare. So Russia, Syria, Iran and Lebanon working together to thrash this ISIS scum.

USA and the coalitions response: provide more arms and supplies to so called moderate rebels. Great idea you know, continue to destabilise a country where half the people are displaced, half a million have died, a few million live in refugee camps and hundreds of thousands of Syrians are now pouring into Europe.

Anyone who thinks the USA is doing something right must also accept that Al Qaeda is a USA ally because Al Nursa and Al Qaeda work together. So how does that fit into the war on terror narrative?

Europe refugee crisis? Blame USA/NATO/Israel/Saudi Arabia for destabilising Libya, Syria, Yemen and other Muslim countries. And why is there so much Islamic terrorism and militancy? You can blame our dear ally Saudi Arabia and its barbaric Wahhabism. The fact the West is in bed with Saudi Arabia indicates there is no morale justification for regime change. This is all about the petrodollar, oil and pipelines. Seriously look at Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia and how this country has funded practically every Islamic terrorist group known. Fun fact: the Bush family were close friends, and contacts, of the Bin Laden family- a rather prominent Saudi family. The corruption and deception run very deep.

You may think Assad and his government are evil, but they are a hell of lot better than the Saudi government. The Saudis actually have legally enforced patriarchy and strict segregation of the sexes. A brutal justice system and lots of executions, head-chopping-ISIS-style, every year. Women who commit adultery are stoned to death in public executions. And the Saudis are our allies? They share our values? The USA and NATO are God-darn hypocrites for using regime change as an excuse to remove governments when they are in bed with the inhumane, tyrannical Saudi government.

Finally, you must surely know about the terrible plight of Libya and how it has become a raging warzone ever since the ouster of Gaddafi. Remove Assad and his government and what is left of Syria will be destroyed and the European refugee crisis will intensify. Support the USA/Israel insane regime change policy and watch Europe buckle as millions of refugees enter year after year. Take a look at Sweden as that is a harbinger of what is to come for Europe. Restrain Israeli Zionism and Saudi Wahhabism, work with Russia and Iran to wipe out ISIS, Al Qaeda and other militant groups, create a Marshall Plan for the Middle East and maybe a lot of the refugees will return back to their homes.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Yo, Ln X --

There is some truth in what you say, but there are also things that could be looked into a bit more thoroughly.

I do not run with the conspiracy theorists.  Some people see evil where there is none -- and sterling motives where none exist.

It all depends upon whom you like to hate.

[AkemiAzula 280]

The more this middle eastern silliness carries on the more I think we ought to recolonise them... We might exploit them but we would ensure order and stability.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

The more this middle eastern silliness carries on the more I think we ought to recolonise them... We might exploit them but we would ensure order and stability.

Oooooooh --!

That sounds soooo 19th Century!

But I like your line of reasoning.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Maybe the idea of colonialism is not so bad after all.  When Syria was a French satrapy there wasn't nearly so much lawlessness, in fact things were rather tranquil.  Anti-colonialism started with the American Revolution, but it is not a solution to states that cannot govern themselves because of internal strife. 

A firm hand is needed, even if the result is the enrichment of another state.  At least there is less likelihood of enrichment of individuals such as the current crop of tin-pot dictators.  I don't think the Russians would object as long as they got their share, and the Americans, having made a worse mess of things that even Bishop Cauchon, can be ignored. 

Let's remember there are more experienced colonial powers in the world than one lonely failed state in the North American continent.  And if you think that the United States is not a failed state, look at what's running for president, and look at that deadlocked congress.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Yo, Ln X --

There is some truth in what you say, but there are also things that could be looked into a bit more thoroughly.

I do not run with the conspiracy theorists.  Some people see evil where there is none -- and sterling motives where none exist.

It all depends upon whom you like to hate.

To be fair the five permanent members of the UN security council: USA, Britain, France, China and Russia, plus Israel (incidentally the only countries with the ability to nuke the Earth into oblivion) are all guilty of geopolitical intrigue, upheaval of governments and selling all the guns which terrorists, criminals and militants around the world use.

Russia has its eye on Syria because it wants to scupper pipeline plans of the Saudis and Qataris, pipelines which would run through Syria and if built could deliver enough gas and oil to remove Russia's energy monopoly over Europe. Putin is one devious player, put it this way- he outsmarted the Russian oligarchs who had complete control of Russia in the 1990s. These same oligarchs backed Putin, Putin pretended to be their puppet and then when he was elected president he betrayed his oligarch backers and had most of them imprisoned and exiled- just look at what happened to Mikhail Khodorkovsky. To think of something similar, imagine Obama sending all of the CEOs and heads of the TBTF banks to prison, confiscating their assets and directly nationalising the TBTF banks. It would be the fall of the banking oligarchs- Jamie Dimon, Lloyd "Doing God's Work" Blankfein and so forth.

The point is Russia's intervention in Syria is just as geopolitically motivated as the USA's intervention. Let's not forget that this is not the first time that Russia has used the War on Terror to garner international support for ruthlessly eliminating Islamic terrorists. During the Second Chechan War, the Russian bombed the Chechan capital Grozny flat and thousands of civilians died. Russia international standing was pretty low but then a year later 9/11 happened and suddenly Russia fighting Islamic Chechan rebels was not such a bad thing because Russia was doing its bit to fight the war against terror.

Now Russia swoops in with perfect timing after a year of US/NATO aerial raids that have virtually nothing to stem ISIS and that's why Western MSM is all up in arms about Russia's military intervention because Russia is fighting the worst bad guys ever (that's how the MSM portrays them right now) and by the Western narrative this is a good thing. But it's not because Russia has torn to shreds the whole notion of a moderate Syrian resistance and exposed the USA's impotence for failing to show any tangible results after a year of aerial sorties against ISIS. Russia is exploiting the war on terror and turning the USA's convoluted plans upside-down. Not only that Russia can legally intervene because it has various treaties and agreements with the Syrian government. And now Iran, one of those countries which Bush branded the axis of evil, is stepping up support for Syria and they are working with the Russians.

And of course the USA is gnashing its teeth about this as it loses control of the narrative- the war on terror propaganda it has created has now backfired. Liars hate to be exposed.

 

p.s. About the Russian oligarchs, they are still powerful figures who do have influence over the Russian government and Putin. But that's the point it is influence and not outright control over the Russian government. The Russian oligarchs of the 90s, in the Boris Yeltsin era, had total control and Yeltsin was their pawn. So I would say it is a half-victory for Putin. I still think it is quite an achievement to scupper some of the oligarchy that has plagued Russia over the last 25 years. I would even go so far as to say the oligarchy in 1st world countries, especially in the USA and the UK, is somewhat worse because it largely a bankers oligarchy.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Don't you think the geopolitical situation is reaching an intolerable stage?  All these MAD powers have too much to say in world affairs, while interfering in the daily lives of people who have not even the slightest ability to resist?  This is the ultimate failure of capitalism and there is no viable replacement in sight.