British Hostages Going Free

[Ser Yorick]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 10 2007, 11:25 PM) [snapback]158435[/snapback]</div>

And your point is foolish, you're not talking about an international police force, you're talking about a worldwide dictatorship. If this UN police force were to be a success it would have to count against /all/ nations.[/b]

Well no, dude, think about it. What does a police force in any type of country do? It has authority over all other citizens, and the ability to go in with permission of the government to arrest people, execute raids, etc.
Now, if we DON'T have a country that has power over all others, and essentially one government, we cannot have an international police force, because there will be resistance on a continental scale. As in, Iran saying "screw you guys," as well as multiple other countries all defying this "Interpol on 'roids". You can't have an international police force if only half the world wants to go along with it.

It's all or nothing, that's how the world works.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adroit @ Apr 11 2007, 07:53 PM) [snapback]158512[/snapback]</div>

Well no, dude, think about it. What does a police force in any type of country do? It has authority over all other citizens, and the ability to go in with permission of the government to arrest people, execute raids, etc.
Now, if we DON'T have a country that has power over all others, and essentially one government, we cannot have an international police force, because there will be resistance on a continental scale. As in, Iran saying "screw you guys," as well as multiple other countries all defying this "Interpol on 'roids". You can't have an international police force if only half the world wants to go along with it.

It's all or nothing, that's how the world works.[/b]

But again. Like I said. It's a dictatorship. Not an international police force. Who polices the Mother Nation of the police forces? That's right. No one. This means that the police force would be used to further the objectives of the mother nation and impress its will over the other nations.

This is the exact situation we have today. You aren't solving anything.


But here's the thing, this police force would be very popular among Europeans, Canadians, South Americans and lots of Americans where I'm from. If every country contributes 1%-5% of their total military forces to a standing army, and then are willing or forced to contribute more as needed(By Democratic vote), then Iran would have no choice but to accept or face an international war.

The difference between their behaviour today, and in this future rule is that Iran is putting its dukes up against a single nation. It's easier to square yourself off against one guy with a gun, as opposed to fifty. Combined with this, would of course need to be the economic sanctions. Not even China could stand up against the combined arms of every other Industrialized nation while dealing with Economic Sanctions.


Mind you, that this concept is really only compatible with the democratic nature of Socialism.

 

[Ser Yorick]

If we were to do that however, there would more than likely be a lot more than just Iran standing against it. I can also be pretty sure that some of those you mentioned as being involved would be opposed to it as well, because it is just a few steps away from a dictatorship as well, though there is not just one nation inflicting its will. One of those involved would be trying to use that police force for its own agendas, probably the US. And if not, it would be using its own private force to undermine the others, attempting to keep itself in control, or the top dog, etc. It would never work, UNLESS we did the dictatorship idea, which I never said would help, nor be a good thing. I said it work.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Economic sanctions against Iran would not work unless they were able to 100% cripple Iran's oil industry. THAT is what needs to collapse in order to collapse the Iranian regime and/or get them to stop their nuclear program.

It's like what I said to Hassan last week. The best thing to do would be to somehow set the oil prices lower and lower, therefore crippling 40% of the Iranian economy until they realize that they need to stop what they’re doing and listen to the wishes of the international community and the United Nations.

However, as Hassan said, it would never work because Bush would never go along with it. Oil is, in his mind, a gift from God to him so he can make as much money as possible. He'd be flipping out as soon as someone mentioned doing that. Therefore, when Romney/Giuliani/McCain/Thompson/Gingrich/Clinton/Obama/Gore/Edwards is President, then it would be a lot easier to get that done.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adroit @ Apr 12 2007, 03:49 PM) [snapback]158626[/snapback]</div>

If we were to do that however, there would more than likely be a lot more than just Iran standing against it. I can also be pretty sure that some of those you mentioned as being involved would be opposed to it as well, because it is just a few steps away from a dictatorship as well, though there is not just one nation inflicting its will. One of those involved would be trying to use that police force for its own agendas, probably the US. And if not, it would be using its own private force to undermine the others, attempting to keep itself in control, or the top dog, etc. It would never work, UNLESS we did the dictatorship idea, which I never said would help, nor be a good thing. I said it work.[/b]

Not really, with the system I've thought of it involves consent from a majority of the parties involved. Therefore, not a dictatorship. There are two ways of doing it, actually, Via a representative government method, where you have representatives vote, or you actually have the people from every nation vote and then you, for instance, get a tally vote from the country. No one country could manipulate the others, at least if you adopt the more Democratically inclined Socialist systems. But again, one country cannot subvert the others for the reasons I've just described.

If you do something with a dictatorship, that's evidence that it /doesn't/ work.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 12 2007, 03:50 PM) [snapback]158628[/snapback]</div>

Economic sanctions against Iran would not work unless they were able to 100% cripple Iran's oil industry. THAT is what needs to collapse in order to collapse the Iranian regime and/or get them to stop their nuclear program.

It's like what I said to Hassan last week. The best thing to do would be to somehow set the oil prices lower and lower, therefore crippling 40% of the Iranian economy until they realize that they need to stop what they’re doing and listen to the wishes of the international community and the United Nations.

However, as Hassan said, it would never work because Bush would never go along with it. Oil is, in his mind, a gift from God to him so he can make as much money as possible. He'd be flipping out as soon as someone mentioned doing that.[/b]

Or better yet, part of Iran's ability to put on a brave face is in that they have a near monopoly on oil. How about you just get /off/ of oil. Peak Oil is approaching /fast/ and we need to prepare for it. Simply playing more Oil games won't do anything.

Also, similar to what you said, we have a national addiction to oil. That's the only way out industrialized economy runs. If we were to hurt the levels of oil coming into our country, we'd be hurt just as much as Iran would. We need an alternative.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 12 2007, 03:56 PM) [snapback]158632[/snapback]</div>

Or better yet, part of Iran's ability to put on a brave face is in that they have a near monopoly on oil. How about you just get /off/ of oil. Peak Oil is approaching /fast/ and we need to prepare for it. Simply playing more Oil games won't do anything.

Also, similar to what you said, we have a national addiction to oil. That's the only way out industrialized economy runs. If we were to hurt the levels of oil coming into our country, we'd be hurt just as much as Iran would. We need an alternative.[/b]

Getting off of oil would take years. Iran could potentially have a bomb in two years. For all we know, Israel could be gone in three years. This could all happen while we're getting off of oil. So, it's not like we could just wave a magic wand and it'd be over.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 12 2007, 03:59 PM) [snapback]158633[/snapback]</div>

Getting off of oil would take years. Iran could potentially have a bomb in two years. For all we know, Israel could be gone in three years. This could all happen while we're getting off of oil. So, it's not like we could just wave a magic wand and it'd be over.[/b]

Iran isn't going to use a bomb like that. They're going to use it as a deterrance device. If they actually use it, they know they're going to get pounced on by not just the United States, but the World. So they're going to use it as a tool to say "If you come after us, we're GOING to use it".

Now, Israel has no real sympathy from me. They've done horrible, horrible things in the past.

But like I said, we have to get off of oil anyway, Peak Oil is approaching anywhere from 2010-2015.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I said "for all we know", not "we know for a fact". It was simply a hypothetical situation.

However, I hope that by saying that Israel gets no sympathy from you you're not justifying a mass destruction of the Israeli people with a bomb.

 

[Ser Yorick]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 12 2007, 03:56 PM) [snapback]158632[/snapback]</div>

Not really, with the system I've thought of it involves consent from a majority of the parties involved. Therefore, not a dictatorship. There are two ways of doing it, actually, Via a representative government method, where you have representatives vote, or you actually have the people from every nation vote and then you, for instance, get a tally vote from the country. No one country could manipulate the others, at least if you adopt the more Democratically inclined Socialist systems. But again, one country cannot subvert the others for the reasons I've just described.[/b]

Um, involves consent from the majority of the parties? Do you mean they have to take a vote before every action involving this police force is taken? Do you know how long that could take? Let alone actually GETTING those big members you already spoke of to join up with this system of yours, which was my general point. There HAS to be a leader in something like this, otherwise your setting up a large government that resembles something like Communism, except it has nothing to do with the people, just the government. There would need to be a president of sorts that is able to make quick and decisive actions with this police force in order for this to function at all. Otherwise it'll be like a giant congress, making all decisions take LONGER, because there would need to be multiple representatives from ALL of the countries involved. Each country in itself would need to vote among themselves on their own vote, and THEN present their final vote.


And a dictatorship DOES work, just not for the general people, it DOES function. Just not in the right ethical or moral way.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 12 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]158636[/snapback]</div>

I said "for all we know", not "we know for a fact". It was simply a hypothetical situation.

However, I hope that by saying that Israel gets no sympathy from you you're not justifying a mass destruction of the Israeli people with a bomb.[/b]

No, not justifying it. I just know why it would have happened. The Middle East is a blood bath no matter how you look at it.

Although you're overestimating the strength of the bomb they could get. The resource requirements for something to blow up all of Israel would be enormous. I don't even know if we have bombs that powerful.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adroit @ Apr 12 2007, 04:07 PM) [snapback]158638[/snapback]</div>

Um, involves consent from the majority of the parties? Do you mean they have to take a vote before every action involving this police force is taken? Do you know how long that could take? Let alone actually GETTING those big members you already spoke of to join up with this system of yours, which was my general point. There HAS to be a leader in something like this, otherwise your setting up a large government that resembles something like Communism, except it has nothing to do with the people, just the government. There would need to be a president of sorts that is able to make quick and decisive actions with this police force in order for this to function at all. Otherwise it'll be like a giant congress, making all decisions take LONGER, because there would need to be multiple representatives from ALL of the countries involved. Each country in itself would need to vote among themselves on their own vote, and THEN present their final vote.
And a dictatorship DOES work, just not for the general people, it DOES function. Just not in the right ethical or moral way.[/b]

You're overestimating how many military actions would be necessary. It wouldn't be that many, not really, especially if you eliminated the exploitation of the Capitalist system. There would be individual action with the Interpol apparatus, but there wouldn't be that many actions that would actually require the Military branch of it to take action. There would be independent action, but they'd still be answerable to this 'congress'. Like I said, it would only require votes if it's a global scale problem that requires everyone to fight together. For instance, Nazi Germany attacking Poland, France, England, and Russia would be an example of the Military apparatus to function.

So in other words. A Dictatorship /doesn't/ work.

 

[Adamis]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 13 2007, 07:50 AM) [snapback]158628[/snapback]</div>

Economic sanctions against Iran would not work unless they were able to 100% cripple Iran's oil industry. THAT is what needs to collapse in order to collapse the Iranian regime and/or get them to stop their nuclear program.[/b]

If I am reading this rightyou think by doing this that the economy of Iran will collapse and so will the Government and a new one will rise up in its place that will be nicer. You seem to forget that the people who will feel this economic crash first and the most will not be the people in power, it will be the common people of Iran! And during the time it takes to collapse the Government will be saying "Look at what is happening to our once grand country! This is the fault of the evil Western Devils! They are the sole cause of you suffering and the suffering of your families! Are you really going to stand for this and let them get away with such an unjust crime!?!" And then EVERYONE in the country will hate you and the whole country will be inroled in some form of miltary and may even start stealing from nearby countries to help support themselves and find a way to breakout and end the problem at its centre. ANd we can all guess where that ends up.