Framework of nations

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

> "laserlight@quixnet.net" wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----

--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> If the number of votes in the UN is determined by

I guess running the logistical support structures for every single
peacekeeping mission doesn't count for much, does it?

Oh, yeah.  And running _all_ of the enforcement
missions (Korea, Iraq, Balkans) that the UN mandates but that the rest of the
world combined doesn't have the balls or firepower to execute.

The way the dues are split out is fundamentally unfair if you take into
account the nations that do nothing
but provide third-rate militia to the occasional
peacekeeping mission. (Bangladesh et al).

Cannon Fodder, John, has it's place.

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 06:31:30 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:

> At 06:31 16/12/01 -0800, John wrote:

> I guess running the logistical support structures for

Great, John can count at least up to three, Korea and Iraq were definitely are
cases of self interest. But the Balkans? Well since the US State Department
effectively torpedoed the a British sponsored European peace plan it's only
fair you clean up your government's mess;) Sure the plan

probably might not have worked, but we'll never know now will we.

> The way the dues are split out is fundamentally unfair

Yes, there's been other efforts by the US (logistic support in East Timor, for
example). But the bulk of the UN peace keeping missions are supported by third
world countries (eg: Indian Gurkas in Africa) and the US hasn't

been a ideal example of a UN member and no amount of apple pie and chest

beating is going to change that.

Now unless there's some ethnic group John would like to rant and rave about
let's steer back to the thread:)

How do we imagine that the nations of the GZG-verse might be put
together? I think that how maritime empires from history managed without the
benefit of radio or satellites is a good place to start.

> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:

> Great, John can count at least up to three, Korea

How many more peace enforcement missions can you recall, where the UN told a
nation, "Stop. Or we kick your ass." And then proceeded to kick their ass.

> and Iraq were definitely are cases of self

All actions a government takes are either in
self-interest or a violation of the trust of the
people of that nation.

> But the Balkans? Well since the US State

Funny, I thought the mess had been created and perpetuated by an ineffectual
UN mission led by the Euros. Yes, we told the people that created the mess
that they would not have another go-around on making
it worse.

> Yes, there's been other efforts by the US (logistic

Every single UN mission is dependant on US logistical support. The only
exception I can think of was the early phase of the East Timor mission where
Australia unilaterally took matters into it's own hands until a UN operation
could get off the ground. Which I
applaud--and point out that if regional powers would
take care of messes in their back yards the US would have to do a lot less.

> and the US hasn't been a ideal example of a UN

Define "ideal". No, we aren't ideal and damn well never will be. I would not
want to live in a nation that was an "ideal" UN member.

> How do we imagine that the nations of the GZG-verse

Indeed. There will have to be a lot of autonomy on
the part of local "viceroys" or "Governor-Generals" or
"Exarch" or "Proconsul" or whatever. Probably at this stage, you'd have
planetary authorities with considerable autonomy in internal affairs selected
from the local populace by whatever method is the norm (voting, or by the
Soviet, or by shooting their way into the Planetary Leader's Palace, or
whatever), plus a representative of the central authority with complete
authority in matters of defense and foreign relations (power to order local
military actions,
negotiate cease-fires or local trade agreements, etc).
Plus the authority to drop the hammer on local authorities who decide to
violate the laws governing the central authority (ie, if the NAC guarantees
religious freedom, and a NAC colony started by seperatist Southern Baptists
started opressing the
Amish in the next valley over, the Governor-General
would step in and resolve the conflict).

As a side note, this leads to some interesting campaign ideas:

Planet X is balkanized, perhaps between notional allies (NSL and NAC, FSE and
ESU). There are a lot of local frictions (perhaps over resources only
extractable in a limited area, like a drug made from flowers found only in a
certain mountain range). One viceroy decides to launch a military campaign to
secure these resources.  He _has_ to achieve a victory
before the central governments can interefe. They won't make him give back the
mountain range and they won't smack his hands if he wins. If he can't win,
then his career is over.

[quoted original message omitted]

> At 11:17 16/12/01 -0800, John wrote:

> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:

I'm sure the Chinese have their own opinion about kicking ass in Korea.

> > But the Balkans? Well since the US State

I refer you to Karl's explanation:)

> Every single UN mission is dependant on US logistical

Really? are you sure? EVERY SINGLE UN peace keeping operation?

> The only exception I can think of was the

I wouldn't run around making such claims about messes too quickly, the US
virtually gave the big thumbs up to the Indonesian invasion and annexation of
East Timor and in doing so effectively put a stop to any foreign intervention.

> > and the US hasn't been a ideal example of a UN

<Beth:> Sorry to but in here, and this can continue off list if anyone wants
to answer me, but why? What's wrong with the principle? I'd be the

first to admit I have some pretty naive notions, but I don't think I'd mind
living in a nation which (a) could swallow its ego long enough to take orders
from another nation if it didn't get to be boss hog this mission round, (b)
really could share the Earth's resources the way try to teach

our children to respect and share their belongings, (c) really did care and
respect others and put out a helping hand regardless of who they were and how
scary it was getting. There is nothing in the principles listed in the charter
that I find reprehensible, supposedly its what many of us try to

achieve in daily life so why not at a grander scale?

What Beth said:) This can go off list, I have to admit I'm growing tired of
every time a UN or UNSC thread comes along, as sure as the sun comes up in the
morning. It degenerates into repetitive arguments about todays institutions
rather than a constructive discussion about the bodies in the
GZG-verse.

> > How do we imagine that the nations of the GZG-verse

Now this is more like it:)

G'day,

> If the number of votes in the UN is determined by the amount

I'm not sure how its enforced, but the charter currently states that a member
loses voting rights as soon as it owes more than 2 years worth of
fees. As to supporting activities such as peace-keeping forces that too
is based on an ability to pay, but for permanent members of the security
council there are further obligations and responsibilities that come with that
membership.

Now whether it works or not the fact that today 77% of all peace keeping and
scientific missions are made up of people from developing nations is actually
a facet of the UN of today that I like in my cut of the GZGverse UN. I like
the idea that maybe the UNSC is the 5th big boy on the block
because they're supported/helped to pull it off by all the little guys
not big enough to do it by themselves. That's why I have the IAS getting
stellar resources on a commission basis for running exploration and scientific
missions for the UN. OK this may mean that sometimes the "pure UN citizens" or
the "better trained" troops may have to cope with people who aren't as well
trained or experienced, but you can only give what you've got. If militia is
the best you can offer, you shouldn't be slapped in the face for giving it.
Moreover, the "better troops" can help out (by bit of training on the side so
to speak) the less experienced ones (Australia is currently
instructing the East Timorese in how have/run an effective, functioning
modern defence force).

Besides above all it makes for some cool (and colourful given all the
different potential uniforms) scenarios where you've got to swallow deep and
hope that militia from Bettlebop IV on the left wing hold out long enough for
you to pull this off and kick butt or whatever;)

Cheers

> On 16-Dec-01 at 14:25, John Atkinson (johnmatkinson@yahoo.com) wrote:

> Planet X is balkanized, perhaps between notional

Everyone knows that Planet X is the sole producer of the shaving cream
molecule.

  One
> viceroy decides to launch a military campaign to

Duck Dodgers in the 24-1/2 centurey!!!

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 11:17:59 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson

<snip Derek and John's discussion> Derek said:
> How do we imagine that the nations of the GZG-verse
John replied:
> Indeed. There will have to be a lot of autonomy on

Exactly. And exactly what I am trying to do with my Cotu Campaign clone
involving the UNSC, several "proxies" (of more or less and varying control by
their patron) and the main truly "independent" (read the ESU,
IC and Japan (all* agreed to remove them from Earth)  local 'power' -
The
People's Holy Republic - combining the worst of Saint Mao and my
caricatures of my own Evangelical Christian 'brethren'. Of course it's
not original - I got it from Stellar Conquest for my old Atari ST...

Gracias,

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 19:32:54 -0500 (EST) Roger Books
> <books@jumpspace.net> writes:
<snip>
> Duck Dodgers in the 24-1/2 centurey!!!

Donald Duck would be my role model, I'm sure. But I have been called
Daffy...

A certain Squadron of the NPC is rumored to have painted various images of
"Saint Duck" on their aerospace craft to twit the PHR's sanctimonious
attitudes...

Gracias,

> John Atkinson wrote:

> John Atkinson wrote:

> Richard Bell wrote:

So some people have different ideals--no surprise.  I wouldn't like to
live in a place like Montreal where you get six feet of snow, but my mother in
law seems to like it, God knows why.

But this is ENTIRELY OFF TOPIC so let's get back to the GZGverse, shall we?
Further discussion of the UN (or the NAC, or the Indonesian

> Derek Fulton wrote:

and the US
> hasn't

Let's be fair, John didn't start the thread, he merely responded. And since he
got bopped for "Trolling," maybe it should be pointed out that the UN

dues issue was a significant bait as well. I'd shudder to try to defend the
US' actions regarding the UN, dues, et al, but John is touching on a valid
complaint that while we have been perhaps less than totally gracious hosts,
the UN and specific delegates have also proven less than exemplary as guests,
both incidentally and in certain cases as a pattern.

From: <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>

> I like the idea that maybe the UNSC is the 5th big boy on the block

Hence my remarks about the OU being a UN Catspaw. I may be accused of many
sins, but originality is not one of them.