Fucking Transnational Armies, How Do They Work?

Look, we can't depend on a freaking external enemy to solve problems and unite every freaking time. Also, as far as fictional evidence goes, End Of Evangelion proves that our worst enemy is ourselves. In fact, if we manage to overcome ourselves as a species, if each human manages to overcome their near-sightedness and work rationally for the greater good, we will be much better prepared and fast to act if and when Giant Space Flea from Nowhere shows up, assuming we aren't that Giant Space Flea conquering the Galaxy.

I don't think external enemies really solve problems. Or even unite people really. It's more like they stomach each other for a bit and then go back to hating each other.

Doing stuff together creates bonds...

then again...

Yeah, that's one of the biggest points against it. "Soviets and Allies team up and kick Nazi ass, surely, once it's over the Soviets and Allies will be able to see that all people are inherently the same right?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is ignoring the fact they were initially enemies and even while Allies the Soviets were openly hostile towards the other powers.

I was more commenting on how a common enemy won't make people become peaceful, it just refocuses it.

The entire concept of a transnational army scares the everloving shit out of me. Once power consolidates to the point that there is no other comparable source, the premise of good will is no longer necessary to keep power because the competition no longer exists for people who don't like you to run to.

Yeah, that worries me too, it's not like a One Piece scenario was even an option here.

EDIT: Raw think my writing is incoherent. That is unpossible.

Any large empire back in the day that was corrupt would be similar to a failure to establish a good global government today. It would be a similar argument against that of national governments to state that they could be corrupt and hinder the people within it and thus we should not have national governments. We've already had situations wherein which poor governance existed in the vacuum of competing nations (Such as China or Rome or Persia). They collapse due to internal problems. I can't argue that a global government won't become corrupt or power hungry (in fact any government will) but I don't see how that is an argument against its existence at all. Simply put, the benefits of a global regime to reduce internecine warfare far outweigh the fears of government incompetence.

Now, onto the point of peacekeeping powers moved up to the UNSC, the issue was that the permanent five found it scary that the General Assembly could over rule the Security Council. Thus they moved up the power into a situation where it can be vetoed and they wrote rules to ensure that, rules which wouldn't have been written if they didn't have veto power. Point is, get rid of veto power and revise how people get those positions.

Now, onto the point of USA arguing against the existence of genocide in Rwanda. It is because by UN rules, if it's a genocide then deployment of peacekeepers must be put on the table. Journalists had already shown that genocide was occurring, or at the very least, mass murder. I assume the USA was assisting the French, in order to push veto power against any resolution suggesting a genocide was occurring and thus no deployment was needed.

A point was raised that the USA did not care and thus why it argued it did not exist and so it did not have to contribute to a peacekeeping operation. I merely am stating that the US had to care. Voting for a peacekeeping operation is not caring because there is no obligation to actually send troops if you vote for it. As evidence I show you the current deployment numbers of USA: Of the 40000 to 50000 peacekeepers out there, USA contributes ZERO combat troops and about three hundred non-combat personnel (which could be stuff like teachers or police officer trainers).

The USA also refuses to pay its dues to the UN, you don't support it with troops and you don't support it financially, so all you use veto poewr for is blocking other people from doing what needs to be done. Same can be said of Russia.

In fact of all the veto power nations, the only nation that doesn't use it is China.

• Soviet Union/Russia: 123 times
• USA: 82
• UK: 32
• France: 18
• China: 6

Of note, the last time China used veto power was quite recently, it was to shoot down a verbal statement that Sudan was committing crimes or something. They did however, agree with peacekeeping deployment in Darfur and contributed 400 troops. (Which is pure make no sense but very politically expedient. You say nothing is wrong but agree wholeheartedly to go fix up the nothing is wrong area) The entire west contributed less than 30. The rest of the peacekeepers are AU (African Union for those of you who don't know).

edited 14th Jan '11 9:40:01 AM by breadloaf

@Pykrete: That's more or less what the Global Defense Initiative turns into. In the end, Kane was right, GDI cared only about seizing power and made the rest of the world their bitch in many ways. True they were the more free society, but GDI was basically a power hungry bitch that would sooner invade countries and take them over into GDI hegemony than dare reason with them in times of peace. (And then you have the fact they more or less continually bullied around the larger nations like India, the US and Russia in that continuity. My God What Have You Done UN?)

edited 14th Jan '11 8:17:32 AM by MajorTom

Can someone please explain to us who don't play Command And Conquer?

Can you please rephrase your post? I find it quite hard to read as it is now.

^ Simple. At the start the UN created the Global Defense Initiative a transnational army to suppress and put down terrorist actions and rogue armies in the name of preserving freedom and peace. Diametrically opposed to them is the Brotherhood of Nod effectively a ragtag but effective militia. GDI quickly finds itself no match for the media manipulation Nod can do and outflanked in many regards on the battlefield.

Over time however they start resorting to harsher and tougher means of fighting back. Things like Mammoth tanks and completely discrediting the media become emergent. By the time of Tiberian Sun (30 years after the first game), GDI no longer plays nice anymore. Anywhere that doesn't shut up and roll with what they say are basically either considered "no-man's land" (as is the case with Tiberium infested regions and certain areas left to the faction known as The Forgotten) or a Nod sympathizer and put down through military force. Even then, they treat temporary allies like the Forgotten as a means to an end to reign in the world under GDI control. Things like racial protests are put down through force as well.

By the time of Command And Conquer 3, most of the world if not a Tiberium hellhole/Nod territory has basically ceded their independence to GDI with only a small number of states like the US and Canada remaining free but bullied and ordered around by GDI. The Scrin invasion brings out their worst sacrificing potentially millions of civilians to stop a minor alien invasion that they could beat militarily.

Command And Conquer 4 does not exist.

^^ The GDI (Global Defence Initiative) started out as a strong military wing of the United Nations that, as the spread of Tiberium made national boundaries pointless, eventually became a conglomeration of the first world nations. The areas they controlled were peaceful, prosperous and most importantly free of Tiberium, while the rest of the world was more or less left to fend for itself and became essentially a giant recruitment camp for the Brotherhood of Nod, an N.G.O. Superpower.

Tom's arguing that GDI became a power-hungry military superstate. I think he's got a point, but I don't think a better alternative could have been created given the circumstances.

edit: somewhat ninja'd. I think Tom's incorrect about the US and Canada remaining independent, though - I'm pretty sure they've ceased to exist by Tiberian Sun.

And what's that about GDI sacrificing civilians to defeat the Scrin? Are you referring to that Tiberium Bomb that you can use?

edited 14th Jan '11 9:28:02 AM by pagad

Alright Raw, I edited my ealrier post to be less rant-like.

Well two things about the GDI:

• This is a better example of people who argue that the UN needs some teeth and should just lay down the hammer of justice. This is what happens if you do that.

• They're better than the NOD :)

Probably somewhat related to the other thread about how we need "offensive" militaries to solve problems, the transnational army we discuss here is for peacekeeping not invading countries we don't like. We set up a constitutional framework for deployment rules and we have a parliament-style organisation (The General Assembly) to authorise its use. There is no war allowed unless it is sanctioned by the UN and for sanctioning a war, this will require a constitution for creating a framework under which war is authorised.

edited 14th Jan '11 9:38:43 AM by breadloaf

I think for a transnational army to work properly, you'd have to limit its size so that no one can get any ideas about using it for nefarious purposes. I'm not liking the fact that, should they become large enough and with enough votes on the UNSC, that they become an international hit squad when a majority of nations approve of their deployment, despite objections by other nations. Or something. But if you make the rules too strict, and you end up with no one deploying anywhere, as the Council (in whatever new form it takes) can't agree to deploy or not to deploy to a region.

So - either you make it too powerful, or in an attempt to make it not so powerful to be a genuine risk to sovereignity, you make it impotent and ineffective. I'm sure there's a happy mendium there, but would it end up looking pretty much like what we have now, already? Why reinvent the wheel all over again if you'll merely end up with teh same result, if that is the case?

Crap. At the end of the day, you still have poor nations that can't afford to field even a basic defense force, and are at the mercy and goodwill of their international community to provide for their national security. Then you have places like Somalia (and perhaps a few other hell-holes developing in Africa) that have simply collapsed, and they need a defense force in place to prevent opportunistic neighbors from swooping in under false pretense of "providing security" while they grab stuff out of the failed nation at five-finger-discount prices. And, the fact (or perception) that the UN seems unable to resolve such things in a timely fashion.