Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

An International Military Force

By looking at the way present international military conflicts are resolved we arrive at critical conclusions about the international status quo. Ad hoc coalitions have not been working well and national armies have continued to drain the resources in developing regions, and are highly inefficient in developed countries. I argue for the creation of a permanent international military force and examine the roles and possibilities of some existing regional military organisations, concluding that there are many advantages in forming such a Uniforce, but that the work required to found it is great.

  1. Uniforce: A Fully Integrated and Permanent International Military Force
    1. The End of International Warfare
    2. Conflicts, Not Mass Wars
  2. The Legitimization of Universal Intervention
    1. Globalised Security Threats
    2. A New Global Paradigm: The Responsibility to Protect
  3. The Global Cost of National Armed Forces
    1. Full Spectrum Militaries Have Become Impractical
    2. The Economies of Scale of International Collaboration
    3. The Economic Costs of National Armies in Wartorn Regions
  4. Coalitions of the Willing
    1. Dynamic Partnerships Have Replaced NATO with a Pseudo-NATO
    2. National Caveats Disable International Reactions
    3. The Solution is a Permanent Multilateralism
  5. Existing Military Unions
    1. Blue Helmets and the African Union
    2. NATO
    3. The European Union
  6. National Special Operations
  7. Building an International Military Force
  8. Conclusions

  • 1
You are the biggest tool I've seen tonight... and that's saying something - I was browsing youtube earlier (knobs as far as the eye can see; naturally). You have managed to take the title of 'most self-important twat' on the internet for this evening. I'd be inclined to point out the blatant inconsistencies in your 'arguments' had you actually made any reasonable sense.. Though, I guess anyone citing Einstein's "unique contribution to this discussion" would immediately 'cite' the references that this 'understanding' was plagiarized from (I'm trying to say that I've seen your 'original views' before, under other, much more published names). Of course, the fact that you seem to think yourself all things to all men (About Vexen Crabtree), it should come as no surprise that you are as vapidly narcissistic (no mean feat) as your unoriginal writings would portray you to be. Perhaps you could back up your sage-like military knowledge with actual combat experience? Or maybe command experience (I'm referring to actual combat experience, none of the bullshit 'hobby wars' of late). Surely NATO could use a figurehead like yourself, or EURO or whatever puppet-politico-group you're using to send strongly worded letters to eastern-bloc countries now days. Either way, this is the internet, no one cares what you say - if anything the internet is more so populated with people who will tell you that you are a complete waste of space, more suited to being something useful such as a test subject for the newest non-lethal (or lethal) area denial weapon. You want misanthropic? try reading your own blog- it's guaranteed to make you question exactly what you're fighting to protect..

(1) Feel free to point inconsistencies out.

(2) I do not claim that this idea is new (and explicitly state so in the text). There have been multiple arguments for the creation of a 'world army' before. For a summary of the 6 (or so) most comprehensive and important ones, see "Vital Force: A Proposal for the Overhaul of the UN Peace Operations System and for the Creation of a UN Legion" by Carl Conetta and Charles Knight (1995 Oct 01). Project on Defense Alternatives Research Monograph 4. Commonwealth Institute, Cambridge.

I have a copy in .pdf format though you'll have to wait until I get home, I'm travelling for the next few days, all my hold luggage (inc. laptop) is already on the pallet for the Herc.

(3) Parts of your text are quite incorehent and I'm not sure what your comments about NATO/puppet-politico-groups mean, nor why you're talking about eastern-bloc countries. Those sentances gives the impression you're some kind of communist who is angry about NATO.

(4) Your criticisms of the internet are true, but I think they only reflect a new medium of output for humankind as a whole, and as such I'd expect the internet to reflect the creativity of the masses. I'm just so pleased you're on it, to police it (or whatever you're doing; I must have missed the point of your posts).

(5) You wrote quite a lot of words without being either useful, creative, useful or informative.


Accusing someone of plagiarism? Cite the original sources.

Accusing someone of inconsistencies? Point them out.

If you did these things, your screed might actually have some weight behind it. As it is, your lurid and sustained invective merely makes YOU a self-important twat and the bigger tool in this argument.

Fuck off until you learn to make a sensible argument instead of just spurting brainless bile.

International Army

You have way too much "faith" that any two countries could get together on any level. What in the hell makes you think they can become "one army." Who in the hell would want that anyway??? Don't you value the soverignty of your own country/army??? Who in the world would you put in charge of the "international army???" And that person would become such a meglomaniac that the world would be in much more danger than it is already. You are way too naive. By the way, I am a born-again Christian, which you cite as being in the "uneducated" slot of life. Well, I'm not stupid or uneducated. My pastor has a two master degrees and a doctrite. So much for Christians being "un-educated." You really don't get it. It's about GOD and not about intelligence or "choice."

Re: International Army

Most the answers to your questions are contained on the page, so in brief:

1. The Blue Helmets, EU and AU have proven the viability of combined forces. Do you really think that Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg (check it out on a map), etc, need their own armies? What good are they, on their own?

2. Countries are arbitrary political constructs; I value good governance in whatever guise it may take.

3. The UN. Obviously. Certainly not an individual person, though. Read more carefully. None of the proposers of an international armed force have even considered putting it under the charge of a single person.

I have no idea why you are bringing up God and your pastor, but:

4. Good for your pastor. The average level of education, qualifications and intelligence of Christians is still lower than than the overall average. The fact that your pastor has two degrees and a doctorate are already taken into account, its just that there are many more Christians too. That's the nature of averages.

5. It's not about God, intelligence or choice, it's about sensible ways of reducing the total amount of armed forces in the world and spending the money on better things.

Re: International Army

Okay, sorry about the Christian/God/Pastor reply. It was that I just read that portion of one of your journal entries and I just wanted to declare that all Christians are not un-educated or "old." Again, I would challenge the thought of the International Army and let's say it could get started and working ... not every country would desire to belong to this army or be under its guise. I live in America and am "appalled" at the UN's record. I, personally, call them the "United Nothing." They are quite useless. They get put in countries who are in "conflict" and are suppose to keep the "peace." However, for example, the UN troops have been put on the border of Israel and Lebanon to keep the "peace" ... well, need I say more, they are and have been "absolutely useless!" So, no matter how organized, etc. this international army may be, I just don't see it being nothing more than the UN as it stands now. What's the purpose of it ... to be sure that "rogue" countries will be kept in line by an international army??? Would you "disarm" all countries??? It is an idealistic idea, but not a practical idea, as the world will not be at total peace until the Lord Jesus Christ sets his feet back on the Mount of Olives in Israel. Sorry ... just had to stick that in there! Forgive Me!

  • 1

Log in