Re: Framework of nations

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

>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.

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
>if you take into account the nations that do nothing
>but provide third-rate militia to the occasional
>peacekeeping mission. (Bangladesh et al).

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

Derek Fulton
12 Balaka st.
Rosny, Hobart.
Tasmania,  7018.
Australia

Phone; (03) 62459123
Mobile; 0438459123
Email; derekfulton@bigpond.com