The Global Treaty Organization

[ilikeverin]

Listen, can we move this bill up to the top of Senate business.  I think it is kinda important

I disagree; we have the UN, and this is just a UN-substitute.  I mean, I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to this (I'd rather hear more arguments than "WHY IS FRANCE NOT IN THIS I LOVE FRANCE " and "OMG I HATE FRANCE FRANCE SUCKS FRANCE SHOULD DIE"), but since we already have an international peacekeeping body I don't think this is particularly urgent.

[ilikeverin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, thank you, but I hardly see what you would have against Brazil and Colombia.  The Colmbian government is democratic.  And they are key in fighting against the drug cartels.  Brazil has been pretty much without problems for a while now, even though thier economy is a bit unstable.

What Super said.  Colombia I'm a little iffy about, seeing that the founding members of this are supposed to be 'major powers' (then again, South Africa isn't very "major" either), but Brazil definitely has a place here.  People really need to start realizing Brazil's vital position in South America.

[ilikeverin]

It just adds to international bureaucracy while dragging us into a military alliance with nations that have military struggles, like Colombia.

Colombia's military struggle is part of an effort to stop international drug cartels which use their power to kill innocent people and murder judges.  These guys have submarines, for God's sake, and our efforts to stop them, at this point, have been pethetic at best, due to lack of scope and coperation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which makes it a good thing that the treaty has stipulations in it with would allow us to not directly support any military action that we vote against, while, at the same time, not binding us from military action if we see it fit, so long as that action is not against the spirit of the treaty.

I was going to include an explusion clause, but I figured that the organization should decide how to handle each case seperatly.  I created this treaty to have a clear purpose, but to be flexible at the same time.

Anyway, the treaty specifically allows countries to deploy a force level that they see fit for the situation, so you nightmare senario of a Pakistani killing an Indian and then global war resulting is totally bogus.  It there did arise a situation where we had to deploy a sizable chuck of our military power, then it woudl be something that we not only should be involved in, but most likely would be involved in anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One word: Rwanda

I won't get into another argument over the scope of this organization, but I will respond to that Rwanda comment.  How many of these GTO countries stepped up to the plate and sent a military force to Rwanda?  Oh that's right, none.  So explain how that was different from UN actions please.

Almost all the countries on this list are under different leadership now.

Yes, and the UN is under different leadership now.  What's your point?