World Security Forces

**sharrukin** · 05-24-2005, 07:40

[QUOTE=Franconicus]

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Besides, as you say, it'll never happen- the US would never allow it QUOTE]
Just an idea: Why not form the UN without the US?

Because the UN would then cease to exist within 5 years!

**Xiahou** · 05-24-2005, 08:02

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Just an idea: Why not form the UN without the US?

Because the UN would then cease to exist within 5 years!

I agree- it's a fabulous idea.

**Stefan the Berserker** · 05-24-2005, 15:55

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Because the UN would then cease to exist within 5 years!

That is stupid Nationalism. The USA are powerful, but not so powerful that the majority of Nations would change its policies by their example. Nor could the USA effectively start actions against the UN.

**sharrukin** · 05-24-2005, 19:09

Originally Posted by Stefan the Berserker

That is stupid Nationalism. The USA are powerful, but not so powerful that the majority of Nations would change its policies by their example. Nor could the USA effectively start actions against the UN.

No they would just stop paying the bills as would most of their allies. The UN would dwindle into the same kind of Irrelevancy that the League of Nations did.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 05-24-2005, 22:24

The UN would dwindle into the same kind of Irrelevancy that the League of Nations did.

Mmmmmm.

Oh and... all your base are belong to us.

**Stefan the Berserker** · 05-25-2005, 22:44

Originally Posted by sharrukin

No they would just stop paying the bills as would most of their allies. The UN would dwindle into the same kind of Irrelevancy that the League of Nations did.

Yeah, I know these NeoConservative argumentation lines. Pretty Fantasy of the USA as the world's dominat Nation and Protector.

However, it is just fantasy. In Case of the Soviet Union whoose "Allies" were in fact puppets, they would have surely all followed when Russia left the UN. But in Case the USA did that, only very few would follow them while the rest remains in it and turns hostile to the USA for that action.

The USA is in position of power since the outcome of WW2 made them the Leader of the Allies, with a seperation between the NATO-States its power was lost.

Also you should recall who so loudly proclaimed the fail of the UN and his favor of its dissolution: Richard Perle.

Seems Perle failed first.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 05-25-2005, 23:10

It's not that members would leave the UN if the US left; very few would. However, I doubt that the UN members would be interested in paying ($$$) for the UN like the US does.

**Papewaio** · 05-25-2005, 23:44

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

It's not that members would leave the UN if the US left; very few would. However, I doubt that the UN members would be interested in paying ($$$) for the UN like the US does.

What being years behind in dues...

**sharrukin** · 05-26-2005, 00:16

Originally Posted by Papewaio

What being years behind in dues...

The United Sates pays 22% of its regular budget, and about 27% of its peacekeeping costs.

Originally Posted by Stefan the Berserker

Yeah, I know these NeoConservative argumentation lines. Pretty Fantasy of the USA as the world's dominat Nation and Protector.

However, it is just fantasy. In Case of the Soviet Union whoose "Allies" were in fact puppets, they would have surely all followed when Russia left the UN. But in Case the USA did that, only very few would follow them while the rest remains in it and turns hostile to the USA for that action.

The USA is in position of power since the outcome of WW2 made them the Leader of the Allies, with a seperation between the NATO-States its power was lost.

Also you should recall who so loudly proclaimed the fail of the UN and his favor of its dissolution: Richard Perle.

Seems Perle failed first.

Also given the American ability to garner lukewarm support for the war against Iraq which was VERY unpopular worldwide, I do not think most countries would have any hesitation in choosing the US over the UN. The trade ties with the US and military consideration alone would decide the issue. Many nation would stay in the UN but it would still be a pointless debating club if the real powers in the world settled things between themselves which they would need to do if the US wasn't part of the United Nations.

What does the UN have to offer in place of what would be lost with American hostility?

**Papewaio** · 05-26-2005, 00:19

Originally Posted by sharrukin

What does the UN have to offer in place of what would be lost with American hostility?

Veto. The ability to snub the entire world and veto the UNs decisions. That has to be worth something in those 181 :2 votes.

**AntiochusIII** · 05-26-2005, 02:13

The UN may be flawed in its organization but at least globalism offers a far better future to the world than your usual average Joe's patriotism or nationalism. In fact, history has proven that nationalism is NOT a way for peace and prosperity. Anybody remembers the World Wars? The US, if it decides to act militarily against an organization that represents a large part of the world would simply destroy its own roots it so proudly proclaim...almost too loudly.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 05-26-2005, 02:25

The UN may be flawed in its organization but at least globalism offers a far better future to the world than your usual average Joe's patriotism or nationalism. In fact, history has proven that nationalism is NOT a way for peace and prosperity. Anybody remembers the World Wars? The US, if it decides to act militarily against an organization that represents a large part of the world would simply destroy its own roots it so proudly proclaim...almost too loudly.

I remember the World Wars. Maybe the first was caused by nationalism, and the second as well. However, globalism didn't show too well in WW2 - the leaders of the free world (not to mention the League of Nations) stood by or even helped (via appeasement) the forces of evil that were on the march.

I don't think I've ever heard a convincing argument for global government. Ever.

**sharrukin** · 05-26-2005, 02:34

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

The UN may be flawed in its organization but at least globalism offers a far better future to the world than your usual average Joe's patriotism or nationalism. In fact, history has proven that nationalism is NOT a way for peace and prosperity. Anybody remembers the World Wars? The US, if it decides to act militarily against an organization that represents a large part of the world would simply destroy its own roots it so proudly proclaim...almost too loudly.

Well when I said hostility I did not mean to imply the Americans would declare war on the UN. They would just ignore it and that would do the trick. Most countries with power currently ignore it anyway when it suits their purposes to do so.

**Stefan the Berserker** · 05-26-2005, 15:42

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

The UN may be flawed in its organization but at least globalism offers a far better future to the world than your usual average Joe's patriotism or nationalism. In fact, history has proven that nationalism is NOT a way for peace and prosperity. Anybody remembers the World Wars? The US, if it decides to act militarily against an organization that represents a large part of the world would simply destroy its own roots it so proudly proclaim...almost too loudly.

Fully right! The UN is the key to get lost with Nationalism.

That is the core of my Idea why to rise that Forces: Regulate Conflicts more properly.

If Perle's Idea of a Confederation of States which accept the Status of Protectorates towards the USA came true, the Democrathy had failed. Those States would then not be Home-ruled and instead be dictated by another Nation.

However these Ideas anyway remember me on Japan's "East Asian Welfare Zone"-Plan in WW2, it was equally the same in Effect on the Membernations.