A world without war

[sear]

"In my opinion the cons far outweigh the pros." Laird

In political systems, there's what is best,
and there's what is possible.

I know the disarming of Australia was fairly quick after the tragic school massacre.

I'm not sure it would be so easy in the U.S.
For one thing, we've got a 2nd Amendment (2A).

B. O. R. ARTICLE #2: Ratified December 15, 1791
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Whether "the right to keep and bear arms" is a right of the individual, or of the States is a debate that's been raging in the U.S. for many decades.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) is looking into precisely that issue, and is scheduled to rule on it by June.
Stay tuned.
But again, if the U.S. Constitution is deemed by the Supreme Court to declare "the right to keep and bear arms" is an individual right, it's not likely that right will ever be legally repealed.

"Well you have more experience of war than me ..." Laird

I know it's confusing. I'll clarify.
I've never been to Southeast Asia.
I've never performed U.S. military service in an active combat zone. I was a Cold Warrior / Drug Warrior.
But because I served from 1973 to 1976, I served with some guys that had been in (recent) combat.
They didn't talk about it much. But when they talked about it, it could make your eyes pop out.
No body should have to go through that.
The carnage I've had to deal with was mostly automobile collisions, a few suicide attempts, and bar brawls.
But that's enough. Dead people just aren't that much fun.

"Are you trying to tell me that what you quoted says that or that it's elsewhere in the constitution?" Laird

"ARTICLE 2. SECTION 2.
1 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States ..."

It does NOT say he's the Commander of the Air Force. But so far it's an uncontested proposition.

Laird,
I'm ~w/ Sher on this.
I support the objective of reducing War to virtual zero, replacing it with a proliferation of prosperity and synergistic cooperation.

But I suspect ceding military capability to one central Earth Command may not be the way to go.
Diversity and local custom is not a problem that requires solution.
I suspect, short term, the goal is to make armies defensive, not offensive.

But who knows? Millennia from now, they may use your ideas as a blueprint.

I just hope they approach it with sober caution.

[Laird]

Sear, I judge you to be a thoroughly decent human being, for whatever that's worth, and ignoring any cries of indignation that enlightened men do not judge others - fuck that, judging behaviour is the way that the world evolves.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) is looking into precisely that issue, and is scheduled to rule on it by June.
Stay tuned.

Yes, I heard a radio report on this issue several months ago and it intrigued the hell out of me.

But again, if the U.S. Constitution is deemed by the Supreme Court to declare "the right to keep and bear arms" is an individual right, it's not likely that right will ever be legally repealed.

Well, there's always the possibility that the Constitution itself will be amended.

Laird: Well you have more experience of war than me ...

sear: I know it's confusing. I'll clarify.
I've never been to Southeast Asia.
I've never performed U.S. military service in an active combat zone. I was a Cold Warrior / Drug Warrior.
But because I served from 1973 to 1976, I served with some guys that had been in (recent) combat.
They didn't talk about it much. But when they talked about it, it could make your eyes pop out.
No body should have to go through that.

I don't know what to say. I have a vivid imagination, and that's enough to fuck me up at the thought of the reality war. When I see guys like Carl saying shit like (paraphrased) "war is just the way that the world is, just accept it", I can't tell you how much I want to thrust him into the reality of it and see just how the fuck he enjoys what he's condemning other people to. I certainly am not in any way prepared to go there. Pardon the swearing, I'm a little drunk right now.

The carnage I've had to deal with was mostly automobile collisions, a few suicide attempts, and bar brawls.
But that's enough. Dead people just aren't that much fun.

Mate, I'm not even prepared to deal with the reality of animal deaths, let alone human deaths.

Laird: Are you trying to tell me that what you quoted says that or that it's elsewhere in the constitution?

sear: "ARTICLE 2. SECTION 2.
1 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States ..."
It does NOT say he's the Commander of the Air Force. But so far it's an uncontested proposition.

Ah! Yes, it does say that unequivocally. But as I asked you in my last post: does it say that the USA is required to have a military? I mean, what if the USA gave up its military in favour of representation in a global army - would the constitution prevent this? My understanding is that it would not.

I support the objective of reducing War to virtual zero, replacing it with a proliferation of prosperity and synergistic cooperation.

Fuck yeah, don't we all??

But I suspect ceding military capability to one central Earth Command may not be the way to go.
Diversity and local custom is not a problem that requires solution.
I suspect, short term, the goal is to make armies defensive, not offensive.

Dude, if that's the way to go, then I'm all for it. I don't really care if my solution is "wankery" - I just want us to find some sort of solution. Anyone who's been to war (yeah, I know - I haven't and I'm projecting but I have a decent imagination) knows that this bullshit has to end - I'm sure that Tomas who's also a Vietnam Vet would say the same thing. It's just a matter of how we go about it. Fine, so I'm wrong to suggest that a global army is the solution: tell me about it but then, equally: give me a good alternative.

But who knows? Millennia from now, they may use your ideas as a blueprint.

I just hope they approach it with sober caution.

Dude, I really don't know. I'm just doing my best as a human being who values life. Help me to do better.

[sear]

caveat:
In U.S. law, the courts interpret, rule on, and in some cases veto (strike down) U.S. law.
So the opinions expressed here are subject to U.S. legal review and decision.

"Well, there's always the possibility that the Constitution itself will be amended." Laird

Correct. When a right is deemed to be Constitutionally enumerated (that's what SCOTUS will decide), then only an amendment to the Constitution repealing that right can remove it (if then).
If it is deemed an unalienable right, not even a Constitutional amendment repealing it would be legitimate.
An unalienable right can not be usurped, by definition.

"does it say that the USA is required to have a military?" Laird

It pre-supposes it.
More to the point, IF there were one centralized Earth army, the U.S. Constitution says the U.S. President would have to be its commander in chief.

So I think that wouldn't work.
Yes the Constitution could be amended.
I doubt they'll want to amend that any time soon (if ever).

[Laird]

"does it say that the USA is required to have a military?" Laird

It pre-supposes it.
More to the point, IF there were one centralized Earth army, the U.S. Constitution says the U.S. President would have to be its commander in chief.

Well that won't work. The centralised army has to be entirely democratic.

So I think that wouldn't work.
Yes the Constitution could be amended.
I doubt they'll want to amend that any time soon (if ever).

Well we're just going to have to convince them to do it, aren't we?

[Tomas]

.



-Hillary Clinton-
Laird - does it say that the USA is required to have a military?

-tomas wiggles in-
As your alter-ego Bill Clinton once said: Last time i checked the Constitution, it's - Of the people, by the people, for the people...



..................


-Singe-
sear - It pre-supposes it.
More to the point, IF there were one centralized Earth army, the U.S. Constitution says the U.S. President would have to be its commander in chief.

-Hillary Clinton-
Laird- Well that won't work. The centralised army has to be entirely democratic.

-tomas butts in again-
And whom on earth is going to run the show. (be specific for once, enough of your pie in the sky analysis) Name someone!


-----------------------


-Singe-
sear - So I think that wouldn't work.
Yes the Constitution could be amended.
I doubt they'll want to amend that any time soon (if ever).


-Hillary Clinton-
Laird - Well we're just going to have to convince them to do it, aren't we?

-tomas squawks-
Calm down Hillary, the Supreme Court decides this in June. The DC guns ban will be applied to all the states...



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971






.

[sear]

"-Singe-" Tomas

What's "-Singe-"?

[Carl G]

"does it say that the USA is required to have a military?" Laird

It pre-supposes it.
More to the point, IF there were one centralized Earth army, the U.S. Constitution says the U.S. President would have to be its commander in chief.

Well that won't work. The centralised army has to be entirely democratic.

So I think that wouldn't work.
Yes the Constitution could be amended.
I doubt they'll want to amend that any time soon (if ever).

Well we're just going to have to convince them to do it, aren't we?

Guess that means this little circle jerk is about over, huh.

Sear,

Singe is Tomas' little play on the word "sear," as in "Sear that meat on the barbie, Bob. Singe it good."

[|read|]

Laird, I appreciate your attempt to come up with solutions - that's a much more difficult and admirable task that poking holes in them. However, I don't know about this impartial global army. Sounds to me like putting a lot of rotten eggs in one basket. I don't think legitimate defense is anywhere near as relevant to the existence of armies, not just in the US but the world over, as is expanding the economic interests of the few. As former General Butler once said, war is a racket. War causes nothing but death, grief, and most significant by dint of its ubiquity, economic hardship for all civilian populations involved. The 7-figure Iraqi deaths from poverty-stricken refugees and severed trade routes aren't even mentioned on the news with the military kills or civilian war causalities (which also usually aren't mentioned), although these "invisible" economic casualties actually represent the largest loss of life. It's the same for every war.

But despite the unmitigated suffering of commoners, the elite always make a killing. Those with political aspirations provoke armed conflict so they have a cause to fight for and more importantly, to drive ignorant popular support to their power base. They invariably use this power to secure the economic interests of whoever has the appropriate combination of finances and guile to generously but discretely provide them with a comfortable future - the value of publicly-traded stocks and/or a cushy post-office job are hard to classify as a bribes. But the corporations make the real money - politicians only get crumbs compared to how much CEOs make selling the government the materials of war. And those are only crumbs compared to the profits they turn off the desperate, cowed labor and unregulated natural resources of a war-torn country they are suddenly granted exclusive rights to "rebuild", with government protection and subsidy. This is not a recent American aberration; this has always been the norm.

As I see it, these are the forces that create and shape armies in the first place. The vast majority of the world populace has absolutely no positive use for them. They're the result of smart psychopaths in government and business playing dumb peasants again each other for fun and profit. (Whom they often insure en masse without disclosure, so they can literally profit from their deaths.) The elite made the armies and the elite control them. Any attempt to unify 2 armies that does not profit the leaders of both will either fail or be portrayed to the public as the plot of one to usurp the other, and a convenient justification for war. The outcomes of a military unification that does profit both leaders are no more appealing: American empire, global police state...

Perhaps I've been a bit pessimistic and paranoid. I think your plan has insight and you're on the right track. But remember that to those in power, you're nothing but another dead peasant. Grim as this realization may be, I think it's necessary to arrive at a practical solution. At no step rely upon the army to do something right, and every step guard against what the army can potentially do wrong.

[Tomas]

.

-tomas-
What have you been smoking?

-Laird-
Tomas: Where's your optimistic idealism gone?

-Laird-
Pardon the swearing, I'm a little drunk right now.

tomas-
When you sober up (if you are able) try staying that way.

How can you be taken seriously being the forum drunk?

Granted, you are in the "Worldly Matters" side of genius forums, but this is where i hang out, get it?

No wonder your posts are garbled (incoherent).

You got a drinking problem - solve it.

Where's MY optimistic idealism? Certainly not at the bottom of a liquor bottle...

The Internet is still in the 'wild west' days - lotsa young kids are reading this. How do you want to be remembered?

How can you be taken seriously on the topic of 'a world without war' when you are fighting your own demons?

This is your second strike Buster, the first was with Trevor...

You have a drinking problem - stay over at Genius Forum and leave the World Matters for the sober to resolve. Get it?


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

[sear]

"Sear,

Singe is Tomas' little play on the word "sear," as in "Sear that meat on the barbie, Bob. Singe it good."

Carl"

I appreciate the courtesy of your reply Carl.
But what's the matter with Tomas? Not man enough to speak up for himself?
He claims to be a VietNam (sic) veteran.
If he was, shouldn't he know that a sear is the component of a gun lock mechanism between trigger and hammer?
Aren't nicknames, and nickpseuds generally shorter than the name or pseud they substitute for?
If he's brain injured I'm more than willing to cut him some slack.
But if he's simply trying to be rude, why would he bother?

"How can you be taken seriously being the forum drunk?" Tomas addressing Laird

Clearly Tomas has no difficulty in recognizing faults in others. Does he have that same capacity to recognize faults of his own?

It's been my lifelong experience that men that deserve courtesy & respect demonstrate courtesy & respect for others.
Only honorable men can know how genuinely difficult it is to be an honorable man. And we don't squander that precious commodity for something as utterly trivial and useless as being gratuitously rude.

But thanks Carl.
We'll see if Tomas has the class to redeem himself.

[sear]

PS
Thanks |read| for the thought provoking post.
I share your skepticism about the global army.
Frankly, if there's only one, why have it at all?
Who would they defend us against? The Martians?

None the less, Laird has raised the issue / topic.

"A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

Thanks to Laird, we're half way there.

[Sapius]

.

Yep! a good read, [read] :)

[DHodges]

I object to this one-worldism and gun-grabbing so strenuously that it's hard to respond without ranting. I'll keep it short.

I'm sure Laird means well. But this one-world government is exactly what fascists and authoritarians of all stripes have been trying for throughout all of history. Once all power is centralized, one person (or a small group) then assumes control of it, and you have a world-wide fascist state with no one capable of opposing it. It is the ultimate dictatorship. To think it could possibly end up any other way is just naive,

This is smiley-face fascism. Freedoms are taken from the people for our own good, because freedoms are dangerous (and expensive).

[sear]

DH,
While I appreciate Laird's apparent humanitarian concerns and intentions, I substantially agree with your pragmatism.

For example:
If the one global army is to have 500,000 men among a population of ~10 Billion on Earth, it wouldn't make sense to cluster the entire 500,000 troop strength in one place.
For one thing it would be vulnerable to a single nuke taking out the entire army.

And it would make the logistics of disaster response a nightmare.

It would make more sense to divide the 500,000 into as many groups as there are countries on Earth, giving more populous countries proportionally larger share of the 500,000.

But if it was going to be like that, isn't that pretty much what we have now, except for the numbers?

I agree w/ Laird on the problem
I disagree with him on the solution.

[Shahrazad]

Once all power is centralized, one person (or a small group) then assumes control of it, and you have a world-wide fascist state with no one capable of opposing it. It is the ultimate dictatorship.

Isn't that pretty close to what the world has now? One man, George Bush, has the power to destroy any country he wants, and unless the rest of the world unites forces, which is highly unlikely, noone is capable of opposing him. Killing him won't do us any good either.

I already am a victim of the ultimate dictatorship. How could Laird's solution scare me?

-

[DHodges]

Isn't that pretty close to what the world has now?

I think I am coming to agree with that position. It's too late; the war is already lost.

Still, here I am, in the soft white underbelly of the Beast. I continue to contemplate this position, and what it means, and what can be done.

[sear]

"Isn't that pretty close to what the world has now? One man, George Bush, has the power ..." Shah

The difference is, Bush is beholden to the U.S. corporate kingpins; in ostensible service to the People of the United States, as defined in law by the United States Constitution.

In Laird's proposal, the defense obligation would be to the planet as a whole; not one against another.

[Shahrazad]

Sear, you seem to be saying that Laird's system would be an improvement upon what we now have, but not by much.

[sear]

Shah,
That's not really my intended meaning. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

I support Laird's objective; peace on Earth.
I don't think his proposed solution is practical.

I'd like the world to be free of War, and strife, and plague.

But even something as seemingly benevolent as going without plague might be deleterious.

Plagues have over the millennia, helped to keep the human population in check.
If we don't have some plagues, there may be so many humans we'll have famines instead.

I'm not saying we need wars to keep out the riff-raff. No.

But the devil is in the details.
Ceding all the planet's military might to one single commander is an alarmingly dangerous thing.

Just one nut-case, one weirdo, one lunatic in such a position, and who knows what vast destruction could result.

With perhaps the U.S. being the major exception, most militaries seem to War within their own jurisdiction.
Decentralizing the commands among the over 100 nations on Earth seems to naturally temper the blood-lust, suppressing the tendency to boil over.
We've had two world wars. Terrible. But relatively few compared to all the other Wars there have been.

If this jurisdictional trend continues under one global army; imagine the detriment that could result.

Peace, prosperity, and happiness are good.
War, and squalor, and misery are bad.

Our intentions may not matter as much as our results.
And the results we get are determined not by what we want, but by what we do.

[Leyla Shen]

Laird,

Been a bit busy lately, will reply to your last email ASAP. In the meantime, wanted to pass this on to you (don't have your email handy).

Global Arms Trade Treaty

[Laird]

How can you be taken seriously being the forum drunk?

I hope to be judged on the content of my posts, not on the state in which I'm in when I write them.

You got a drinking problem - solve it.

I appreciate the concern but at this point I wouldn't describe it as a problem.

How do you want to be remembered?

At the very least, as an honest man.

And whom on earth is going to run the show. (be specific for once, enough of your pie in the sky analysis) Name someone!

Alright, for argument's sake how about General Peter Cosgrove? He led the Australian military successfully for several years. He's retired from active military service now though, so he might not be available anymore, but as far as I can tell he's the sort of guy that we'd need.

|read|,

I think that for the most part your analysis is pretty accurate. I want to comment on a couple of things that you wrote though:

Any attempt to unify 2 armies that does not profit the leaders of both will either fail or be portrayed to the public as the plot of one to usurp the other, and a convenient justification for war.

Hmm, yes, as you later suggested that you might have been, I think that in this statement you are being "a bit pessimistic and paranoid". A simple attempt (entirely diplomatic of course) to unify 2 armies would be used as a "convenient justification for war"? Somehow I think that even given the propaganda machine of the states that that one's not going to pass muster.

The outcomes of a military unification that does profit both leaders are no more appealing: American empire, global police state...

The global army would be democratically controlled by all nations, not just the Americans: one country, one vote. As for "global police state", my proposal is that as soon as is practical (i.e. when the world is sufficiently disarmed) the global army would itself be disarmed and turned into a disaster-response force.

I share your [|read|'s] skepticism about the global army.
Frankly, if there's only one, why have it at all?

Right, exactly - it's a stepping stone that would be removed as soon as is practical.

Once all power is centralized, one person (or a small group) then assumes control of it, and you have a world-wide fascist state with no one capable of opposing it. It is the ultimate dictatorship. To think it could possibly end up any other way is just naive

This force would be predicated on democratic control. It would respond to no other command. How exactly do you propose that the democratic control of the force would be usurped?

Remember too that the force would be kept as small as possible and that as soon as is practical it would be disarmed itself, and that for all intents and purposes it will during its stepping-stone existence be simply a counter to the remainder of the world's armed forces so that even if it were successfully commandeered, the rest of the world would be able to oppose it.

It would make more sense to divide the 500,000 into as many groups as there are countries on Earth, giving more populous countries proportionally larger share of the 500,000.

Yes.

But if it was going to be like that, isn't that pretty much what we have now, except for the numbers?

No. For a start, the troops in each country would be mixed, they wouldn't all be from the country itself, so any attempt by the host country to take command of that group of soldiers would fail. Secondly the command structure would be entirely different - the troops wouldn't respond to the host nation, they would respond to the global command.

Ceding all the planet's military might to one single commander is an alarmingly dangerous thing.

It's not so dangerous when his authority is totally dependent upon the democratic say-so of all the nations on Earth (or those which have up to that point signed up). If he gets out of line then he's removed.

Been a bit busy lately, will reply to your last email ASAP.

Ah, you did get it! I was about to send you a little prompter, as I need to get about organising myself pretty soon.

In the meantime, wanted to pass this on to you (don't have your email handy).

Global Arms Trade Treaty

Nice one, thanks. I hadn't heard about it before - stuff like that is encouraging.

[Shahrazad]

Laird,

What if we just unite all armies in the world besides the US armies, into one huge army, and call it the anti-US army? It would protect the whole world against the US army. Major wars would then be highly unlikely, though I admit local wars would still be a problem.

This anti-US army would be step 1. Step 2 would be both armies get rid of weapons gradually. Step 3 would be eliminate armies altogether.

-

[Laird]

Sher, that would probably end up happening anyway - as I wrote in my thread-starter I suspect that the US would be the last nation on Earth to give up its army. I'd be opposed to naming this force the "anti-US army" though - that's just plain antagonistic: we're trying to promote harmony here. If that's the way that it goes then so be it, so long as the end goal of general disarmament is achieved then it works for me.

[Shahrazad]

Sher, that would probably end up happening anyway - as I wrote in my thread-starter I suspect that the US would be the last nation on Earth to give up its army.

Ok, I see what you're saying. However, as long as the US does not give up its army, the rest of us won't see our effort as "giving up our army" but as uniting against a big enemy. In fact, some countries that don't even have armies may want to come up with one, if the big army is not really big enough to counter-balance the US army.

But this is the opposite of what you were recommending. Instead of having less weapons, we would have to build more.

You can scratch my proposal from the board.

BTW, there is one man who is just dieing to unite a whole continent under one flag and one army. His name is Hugo Chavez.

-

[Laird]

BTW, there is one man who is just dieing to unite a whole continent under one flag and one army. His name is Hugo Chavez.

I don't know much about the guy, but from what I gather he's a bit of a visionary/idealist.