NationStates Jolt Archive

Something I was recently reading about:

Would you support a democratic and secular world government, based on the idea of democracy and separation of powers?

Personally, I think it's a pretty good idea, and a good thing for people to work for. What do other people think?

It'll last for one day or less... people just can't get along in this world. How many civil wars are going on in this world right now? You really think one world government would even be plausible let alone last? Let alone be practical? Think of the ugly bureaucracy involved.

I'm all for a unified planetary government, though I'm not too sure about it having to be democratic or secular.

A nice idea, but the seperation of powers and the system of representation itself should be very innovative and enforced aggressively just to prevent corruption.

I'm all for a unified planetary government, though I'm not too sure about it having to be democratic or secular.

It it isnt democratic, people will rise up against the world government because of their lack of representation. The problems with a democracy (using expensive social programs as vote-getters, partisan belligerency, etc.) are nothing compared with the potential for corruption and totalitarianism among a non-democratic government.

Also, a government MUST be secular. If not, then things can only turn ugly, for at least one group of people.

Yes, I fully support the idea, but it would only work if everyone was permitted to do their own thing as far as possible (Ie low taxation and social welfare, and large amounts of social freedoms.), otherwise all groups will claim they are being oppressed by others. It's harder to make the claim that you're being oppressed because other people are free. In addition, social programs would be difficult to implement currently, as they would inevitably be of different qualities in different regions; another excuse for civil war and secession.

But I support it most of all because of the lack of borders and of easy movement around the world.

That would be a delicate balance.

The problem is that one group will be fucked somehow.

Although, there are still many road blocks and problems to be torn down and overcome all of history points to the conclusion that the political unification of the world is within the grasp of humanity. We as a single people have gone from small groups of families and clans, to tribal groups, to cities and nations states and now to continental groupings such as the budding EU. The union of the American states from independent freshly freed colonies, to a loose confederation of states, to a strong union of states further forged on the anvil of civil war into the strongest and often envied government in the world gives more evidence, along with the EU to what is possible under the influence of a diverse body of ideas and opinions grounded with proper guidelines for human and civil rights.

The only World Government I'll support is one where "super-powers" have no right to veto, or any of the other gross inequities promulgated by currently-fading Democracies and newly-emerging Dictatorships, with vested interests in controlling other peoples' lives unduly.

The only World Government I'll support is one where "super-powers" have no right to veto, or any of the other gross inequities promulgated by currently-fading Democracies and newly-emerging Dictatorships, with vested interests in controlling other peoples' lives unduly.

So no World Government at all then, considering one tends not to have a plurality of soveriegn governmental powers in such a scenario?

So no World Government at all then, considering one tends not to have a plurality of soveriegn governmental powers in such a scenario?

A truly democratic, representative government, yes. A wildly skewed sham of a government that favours some and discounts many, no.

Never! But one day it will happen, as written in the Holy Scriptures.

I am not so sure I would agree with a world government. I like the idea, but I am not sure that I would like the resulting government. I think that the government created by a democracy and all of that would end up being too insane. Democracy would not work over a group as diverse as the world(unless we started brainwashing everyone into some universal belief).

Under a democratic system I can imagine civil wars and people voting to leave the government to become their own country. If a world government was to work it would most certainly require some authoritarian policing in order to keep these diverse people from creating civil wars or undermining the system in some other ways. This of course would be seen as undermining civil rights and might cause more problems, it would not work without oppressing some people.

A truly democratic, representative government, yes. A wildly skewed sham of a government that favours some and discounts many, no.

Sounds reasonable, but that's not how democracy works. Hence my belief in Libertarianism; if you're not forced to contribute to public works you disagree with, and you're not forced into behaviour based on flawed moral principles, then things will be right.

But I was merely pointing out that there would be no superpowers in a world government, unless you mean a collective such as the UN comprised of already existing soveriegn states, rather than a single system and government for the entire planet.

The only World Government I'll support is one where "super-powers" have no right to veto, or any of the other gross inequities promulgated by currently-fading Democracies and newly-emerging Dictatorships, with vested interests in controlling other peoples' lives unduly.

It seems only reasonable to expect that each country tht is a member of the union would be allowed to vote. That their vote would have no more influence than any other vote also seems reasonable. The real question isn't, it seems to me, whether a world government is going to happen; rather, what shape will it take and when. Will it come about because of a series of events that force the world to realise that it is hugely wastful and dangerous to not join together as one common people. Or, will one horrible event awaken us from our slumber.

How else can the large multi-national corporations be reined in from their avoiding fair wages, fair taxes and fair responibilities to the citizens and workers of the nations where they make their profits, too name just one of the many inequities that exist in the world today.

But I was merely pointing out that there would be no superpowers in a world government, unless you mean a collective such as the UN comprised of already existing soveriegn states, rather than a single system and government for the entire planet.

If Super-powers are to not have 'special' powers, or 'special' status within the framework of a World gov (i.e. China, US having permanent Security Council status, UK allowed a national veto, etc.), it'll be a cold day in Hell before the Superpowers accept it.

If it is democratic and secular, then... NO WAY!!!

If it is not democratic, then I'd be all for it... ;) A monocracy could keep world peace, while a democracy would fall apart because no country really would give a crap if 51% of the world's population votes against their plan, and then they would just ignore the "world government".

If Super-powers are to not have 'special' powers, or 'special' status within the framework of a World gov (i.e. China, US having permanent Security Council status, UK allowed a national veto, etc.), it'll be a cold day in Hell before the Superpowers accept it.

If a "cold day in hell" is what it takes for a world gov to happen then God or history or evolution or whatever will provide that motivator. "Events" have often pushed the reluctant into actions they never wanted to take or become a part of.

Well, in theory yes. But in practice it would become an uncontrollable sprawling, overly bureaucratic. corruption-ridden, war torn nightmare.

Hell is cold. The concept of a hot hell is a relatively modern invention. But that's off the point.

I was under the impression we were talking about a single country governing the entire planet, not an overarching framework through which governments operated. Thus, I'm out, because I've little interest in yet more UN beaurocracy.

if star wars has taught us anything (which it has) its that democracy just doesnt
work god dammit

I was under the impression we were talking about a single country governing the entire planet, not an overarching framework through which governments operated. Thus, I'm out, because I've little interest in yet more UN beaurocracy.

Then you can definitely count me out. No way in Hell, cold, hot or lukewarm.

Then you can definitely count me out. No way in Hell, cold, hot or lukewarm.

Why, afraid it'd be Amerikkka? :rolleyes:

Honestly, I believe to the only thing that will unite mankind is an invasion from an hostile Alien race or a natural disaster of apocalyptic proportions. We just hate each other too much.

I think that it would be possible to have a just, peaceful, non-corrupt world government, but this assumes that we all suddenly become really nice people, sans the brainwashing. One day I'm confident it will happen, but most likely only after it has proved workable on other planets (assuming we get out there before we all kill each other.) On the other hand, while an authoritarian world government would allow for greater control, it still probably wouldn't be better than the current situation.

Fuck no! Why would I want to join with socialist wienies, commie scumbags and Islamo-Fascists?

Fuck no! Why would I want to join with socialist wienies, commie scumbags and Islamo-Fascists?
Well before we'd start a world government we'd have to gas everyone who doesn't agree with me.... :D

I'm in favour of a global Government, with a big parliament of representatives of all peoples of the earth. No countries anymore.
Think of the possibilities. Priorities would be eliminating world hunger (which would be much easier that way), shooting stuff into space etc
If we'd just take the annual US Military Budget, everyone in Niger would be living in a mansion...

Never and I would die to prevent it. Humanity needs separate nations to keep itself sane. Moreover, a democracy fails. A democratic republic, however, often thrives (before sliding into a dictatorship, as all republics do with time; just as America will with time).

Sure, I'd support it, as long as they don't try any wealth redistribution. Get rid of the military and use the savings for tax cuts and infrastructure, and create a world currency and world central bank. We would have to be careful of the bureaucracy; a minimal government would likely be necessary for success.

Yeah, but it would need to be a direct-democracy commune type. Think Star Trek type. But with better representation. And no class. Definitely no class. And public ownership of property. Am I letting my ideology seep too much through in this post?

Not yet damnit! We aren't even close to anything resembling a world government and it will be a long time coming. Of course that isn't to say that it isn't coming, it is, but we just have a long ways to go. Hell, by that time starvation won't even be a issue anymore, Africa will be in better shape then today’s Europe, Socialism and Capitalism will be distant things of the past, and everyone will marvel at just how dumb people were when "digital watches were a pretty neat idea."

Just as soon as the rest of the planet files for statehood. :)

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/11/04/president.foreignview.ap/story.usa.flag.globe.jpg

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United Planet of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one World under God, indivisible,
With Liberty, Equality and Justice for all.

I would say it is entirely conceivable. Many said the same thing when Alexander the Great united the Greek states and much of the known world, when Rome ruled even more of the known world, etc. Russia was able to unite peoples stretching from The Novogrods, Russian, etc. all the way to far east Siberia. China became united, and so forth. It keeps happening on a larger and larger scale. Technology is also allowing for much better communication than during the times of the Roman Republic/Empire.

We are seeing more people uniting into larger confederations. My personal idea is to run the world as if it were a country. National governments could take care of things that involve their sphere of influence (such as provincial governments) and the world government would hold influence of things on an international scale.

I only hope I live to see the day when the news headlines proclaim the beginning of the United Nations of Earth.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United Planet of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one World under God, indivisible,
With Liberty, Equality and Justice for all.
All right. All those people who said they would go fight in a revolution in my other thread a while ago....
Now is the time!
Liberty or Death!!!

Here is how it would go: First it would last for about a week, maybe longer, then some minority party would attalk another minority party and then BAM! it's over; Turning into a Tyranny of the majority, then turning into some other form of tyranny.
Why it would never work? No One will EVER share the exact same views as everyone else. (well almost never...)

Also there will always be fanatics, rebels, and minority groups of some sort.

I would say it is entirely conceivable. Many said the same thing when Alexander the Great united the Greek states and much of the known world, when Rome ruled even more of the known world, etc. Russia was able to unite peoples stretching from The Novogrods, Russian, etc. all the way to far east Siberia. China became united, and so forth. It keeps happening on a larger and larger scale. Technology is also allowing for much better communication than during the times of the Roman Republic/Empire.

We are seeing more people uniting into larger confederations. My personal idea is to run the world as if it were a country. National governments could take care of things that involve their sphere of influence (such as provincial governments) and the world government would hold influence of things on an international scale.

I only hope I live to see the day when the news headlines proclaim the beginning of the United Nations of Earth.
You might get to...
I believe that soon(who knows how soon) there will be a "Global Community"/"United Nations Tyranny"(lol) or something of that sort.
WEll personally it is a religious reason. I am a Christian(do not assume I am a neo-con) and I believe in the seven year tribulation. I also believe that most religions, not only Christianity, will be severely persecuted.
It will be a sad seven+ years.

Here is how it would go: First it would last for about a week, maybe longer, then some minority party would attalk another minority party and then BAM! it's over; Turning into a Tyranny of the majority, then turning into some other form of tyranny.
Why it would never work? No One will EVER share the exact same views as everyone else. (well almost never...)

Name one government of anykind, any place in the world, at any time in history that had everyone agree on all matters all of the time. It is not agreeing that that makes unity possibile, it is what we do when we disagree. Diversity of thought in politics is just as important as diversity of genes in biology.

Have any of you guys seen Star Wars? I bet a world government would be like the Republic. Everybody sits around debating and nothing gets done. Y'all get it?

It would just be stupid beaurocracy. Either that or it would be An Authoritarian Dictatorship.

Just like now. Over the centuries so many have said that uniting x people will result in what we're claiming now. What have we seen? The Russians are united, the Chinese are united, the Germans are united, et al. It has taken centuries, but it happened.

Look at Canada, the United States, or any country that can be considered a melting pot. Dozens, if not hundreds of ethnic backgrounds coexist as one. They still remember their heritage, they are still proud of it. But they are also citizens of their current country. I am a first generation Canadian. I am mindful of being Yugoslavian, and hope to maintain a strong heritage in generations to come(children speaking the language, named yugo names, visiting Yugoslavia etc) but I am first and foremost Canadian. I belive many others in Canada think similarily. Strong heritage, strong Canadian citizenship. I see no reason for this not to extend to a world nationality. Mindful of being Canadian, American, French, Iranian, Chinese, Australian, Brazilian, Cuban, but still a world citizen first and foremost.

It will be on a larger scale, but will still be proportional. Why are crime rates generally higher in Ontario than Prince Edward Island? United States than Canada? A higher population allows for more criminals, but still in a similar proportion (generally speaking as there are many otehr factors as well).

Have any of you guys seen Star Wars? I bet a world government would be like the Republic. Everybody sits around debating and nothing gets done. Y'all get it?
or it might not. you never know until you try.

haha, yall.

It would just be stupid beaurocracy. Either that or it would be An Authoritarian Dictatorship.
You're switching your reasoning a bit.

On a domestic level you get a lot of cultural, ideological and other differences too, yet a democracy seems to work fairly well there.
Why not international?

All right. All those people who said they would go fight in a revolution in my other thread a while ago....
Now is the time!
Liberty or Death!!!

Fight a revolution to join the United Planet of America? Great idea!! :)

I'd like to think that the UN works just fine the way it is if it weren't for a few... well... you know...


As far as world government goes, I don't believe it's that necessary. There would be some interesting advantages but it wouldn't work. Not in a world that includes people that re-elect and enthusiastically support men who lie to the United Nations, and base military invasions on said lies.

You think social wellfare is expensive now? Try adding about 5 billion poverty stricken people to the cheese line and see how it goes. But seroiusly.. The less fortunate downtrodden areas of the world will demand equal representation and distribution of funds (as they should) in a perfect 1 world govt. The west would end up being nothing more than social earning slaves for the third world. It just wouldn't work. no way no how. They'd see injustice and inequality, we'd try to appease them, we'd all get bitter, then go broke, then have a war and split back into countries. We'll have a one world government that works someday but the king will be the king of kings and there'll be no poverty to worry about anymore.

How about no government at all? I think one-world government is a stupid idea. Of course, that's to be expected given I'm an anarchist.

Some form of a world super-state must needs be evolved, in whose favor all the nations of the world will have willingly ceded every claim to make war, certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments, except for purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective dominions. Such a state will have to include within its orbit an international executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on every recalcitrant member of the commonwealth; a world parliament whose members shall be elected by the people in their respective countries and whose election shall be confirmed by their respective governments; and a supreme tribunal whose judgment will have a binding effect even in such cases where the parties concerned did not voluntarily agree to submit their case to its consideration. A world community in which all economic barriers will have been permanently demolished and the interdependence of Capital and Labor definitely recognized; in which the clamor of religious fanaticism and strife will have been forever stilled; in which the flame of racial animosity will have been finally extinguished; in which a single code of international law -- the product of the considered judgment of the world's federated representatives -- shall have as its sanction the instant and coercive intervention of the combined forces of the federated units; and finally a world community in which the fury of a capricious and militant nationalism will have been transmuted into an abiding consciousness of world citizenship -- such indeed, appears, in its broadest outline, the Order anticipated by Bahá'u'lláh, an Order that shall come to be regarded as the fairest fruit of a slowly maturing age.

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 40)

As long as it has a minimal democratic government, with little involvement in peoples private lives or the economy, sure. A world government could either result in a huge bureaucracy of a government attempting to solve everyone’s problems and ultimately just screwing everyone over, or a distant small number of elected officials who only concern themselves with the most important matters, thus allowing people to live their lives in the way they see fit. I am in favor of the latter.

Something I was recently reading about:

Would you support a democratic and secular world government, based on the idea of democracy and separation of powers?

Personally, I think it's a pretty good idea, and a good thing for people to work for. What do other people think?

It's a nice idea, I just doubt it will ever happen without massive cause...my meaning here is, I dont believe Earth will ever be united in a democratic manor, the only way I believe a United Earth will ever exist is if it is done so by force under an imperialistic government. Either that or some huge tragedy that unites mankind for a greater purpose.

The larger and more removed government gets from the people it allegedly serves, the more irresponsible, unresponsive, tyrrannical, and destructive it becomes. A World government, by its very nature, would be unable to respond responsibly or intelligently to problems. It would, conversely, be far more efficient at killing innocent civilians and bystanders cracking down on dissidents, and it would be extremely efficient at smashing economic growth, suppressing opportunity, and enslaving the populace. after all, who would they be able to turn to for redress of grievances? Who could resist that kind of force?

I would fight actively (and die ignobly (that means without nobility, or likely success)) against such a thing, because even with the best of intentions and highest of ideals, inevitably, it comes to corruption. We see it now in 'Supercountries" like the U.S., EU, and the late Soviet Union. On a global scale, you're looking at a state more like the Soviets, than the U.S.-but more removed, more easily corrupted, and more attractive to those who would corrupt it to gain power.

I might support a planetary government, but it would depend upon how it was constituted, and how authority and power would be allocated between the planetary government and national governments.

To be quite honest, I don't trust a significant portion of the world to participate in a planetary government with logic, reason and patience. Nations which have no history of participatory government would be problematic.

Some form of a world super-state must needs be evolved, in whose favor all the nations of the world will have willingly ceded every claim to make war, certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments, except for purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective dominions. Such a state will have to include within its orbit an international executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on every recalcitrant member of the commonwealth; a world parliament whose members shall be elected by the people in their respective countries and whose election shall be confirmed by their respective governments; and a supreme tribunal whose judgment will have a binding effect even in such cases where the parties concerned did not voluntarily agree to submit their case to its consideration. A world community in which all economic barriers will have been permanently demolished and the interdependence of Capital and Labor definitely recognized; in which the clamor of religious fanaticism and strife will have been forever stilled; in which the flame of racial animosity will have been finally extinguished; in which a single code of international law -- the product of the considered judgment of the world's federated representatives -- shall have as its sanction the instant and coercive intervention of the combined forces of the federated units; and finally a world community in which the fury of a capricious and militant nationalism will have been transmuted into an abiding consciousness of world citizenship -- such indeed, appears, in its broadest outline, the Order anticipated by Bahá'u'lláh, an Order that shall come to be regarded as the fairest fruit of a slowly maturing age.

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 40)

You're a Baha'i? Cool. I've never met one before (in person or on internet).

You're a Baha'i? Cool. I've never met one before (in person or on internet).

Ya, sure am. I live in Minnesota. And you?

The concept is all well and good, and it would save many, many people from unfair treatment.

However...

Too many people would frown upon it, and it would never work. Human's are just too flawed to set up something like that.

The concept is all well and good, and it would save many, many people from unfair treatment.

However...

Too many people would frown upon it, and it would never work. Human's are just too flawed to set up something like that.
We'll have to, in one form or another. Otherwise we'll probably go extinct. It's a matter of structuring a planetary government in such a way that freedoms are guaranteed and existing nations still retain as much of their autonomy as possible. Damned tricky. :(

I might support a planetary government, but it would depend upon how it was constituted, and how authority and power would be allocated between the planetary government and national governments.

To be quite honest, I don't trust a significant portion of the world to participate in a planetary government with logic, reason and patience. Nations which have no history of participatory government would be problematic.

This is a common response that is heard as a reason to believe that a world government will not work. Without meaning any disrespect this is the same kind of reasoning for denying blacks the vote in the US for so many years. The evolution to a fully fuctioning world government will be a difficult road to travel down with few reliable maps. It is a road that will be traveled down nonetheless.

The only way it would work if everyone agreed on everything and if that was the case then there would be a lack of diversity causing the collapse of it all. A little bit like Communism. I would support the idea if there was someway it would work but people are always going to disagree.

I think that a world Govenment will happen, but that, even though the world may be united by a democratic or republican-style government, it WILL eventually become a dictatorship of sorts. I think it will because eventually earth will be stripped clean by money-mongering capitalists, so we shall have no choice (doesn't something like that always seem to get us to make the right decision?).


P.S.- They should call it they UEF(United Earth Federation), or the PRE(People's Republic of Earth) if it happens to become a republican government(a republic technically isn't a true democracy; government isn't forced to do the will of the people). Or maybe it'll have an arcane name, maybe in latin(Iunctus Terra Feodero, or Populus Res publica of Terra). Just a thought. :D

Ya, sure am. I live in Minnesota. And you?

I'm a Buddhist. I live in Ontario.

I would support it unless i was capitalist. if it was, the more powerful provinces would use their influence to bend the system to their advantage. Under a socialist system, the government could prevent such conflicts.

This is a common response that is heard as a reason to believe that a world government will not work. Without meaning any disrespect this is the same kind of reasoning for denying blacks the vote in the US for so many years. The evolution to a fully fuctioning world government will be a difficult road to travel down with few reliable maps. It is a road that will be traveled down nonetheless.
Sigh. No, I'm not a racist just because I live in the Southern US.

As I've said many times on here, there seems to be a kind of progression at work in human history: family to clan, clan to tribe, tribe to city-state, city-state to nation ... nation to planetary government? It seems logical to me, but if you think peoples without a foundation in freedom, human rights and balance of power can effectively participate in a planetary government, I have some ocean-front property in Arizona you're going to love. :(

Under a socialist system, the government could prevent such conflicts.
How?

I'd support a world government about as much as I support the U.N.

Which is to say, not at all.

I'd support a world government about as much as I support the U.N.

Which is to say, not at all.
Hello George W Bush. How are you doing?

Sigh. No, I'm not a racist just because I live in the Southern US.

As I've said many times on here, there seems to be a kind of progression at work in human history: family to clan, clan to tribe, tribe to city-state, city-state to nation ... nation to planetary government? It seems logical to me, but if you think peoples without a foundation in freedom, human rights and balance of power can effectively participate in a planetary government, I have some ocean-front property in Arizona you're going to love. :(

Dear friend,
Please, I did not call you racist. And I don't think you are racist. I don't know you. What I said is the reasoning you are using denies people the rights to take part in decision making because you believe they are not ready for it. It is fault reasoning not racism; although, many racist and sexist have used this faulty reasoning. This same kind of reasoning was used to deny women their rights, blacks in the US their rights, women in Islamic countries their rights, subjects of colonial countries their rights and blacks in South Africa their rights.

As a staunch advocate of common sense, I would have to say no.

I think it is the natural direction government will ultimately go. I think all the arguments saying "people will never be able to" and "people will never agree" and "it would never work" are just our natural knee-jerk reactions to the idea of massive change.

I also disagree that there would be a monumental government far-removed from the people it purports to serve. Rather, I envision more devolution of powers to local government, much as municipal and regional governments now operate within a larger framework of national and international organisation. We will simply have one higher tier of government above the nation level. Laws would be standardized for all. It would be a massive undertaking to get it all set up, absolutely, but one day it will happen.

The major problem I foresee will be amongst the religious groups who believe their own morality must be enforced upon everyone else. There is no way around these people though, under any form of secular government.

Hello George W Bush. How are you doing?

Nice generalization, there. Guess you slipped up on that one. :rolleyes:

The U.N. is about as affective as trying to cut pavement. It's become nothing more than a corrupt, beuarocratic mess, and the same would happen with a world government. The less people a government governs, the more effective, the more geared towards the people it becomes. A world government could never work. You'd never be able to get middle eastern countries to agree to western standards of freedom. It won't happen.

Dear friend,
Please, I did not call you racist. And I don't think you are racist. I don't know you. What I said is the reasoning you are using denies people the rights to take part in decision making because you believe they are not ready for it. It is fault reasoning not racism; although, many racist and sexist have used this faulty reasoning. This same kind of reasoning was used to deny women their rights, blacks in the US their rights, women in Islamic countries their rights, subjects of colonial countries their rights and blacks in South Africa their rights.



One of the innumerable nice qualities about not having a world government: If you don't like your country's policies and/or its corruption, you can move. In this case, unless you enjoy living on Mars, you wouldn't have that option!

Dear friend,
Please, I did not call you racist. And I don't think you are racist. I don't know you. What I said is the reasoning you are using denies people the rights to take part in decision making because you believe they are not ready for it. It is fault reasoning not racism; although, many racist and sexist have used this faulty reasoning. This same kind of reasoning was used to deny women their rights, blacks in the US their rights, women in Islamic countries their rights, subjects of colonial countries their rights and blacks in South Africa their rights.

Actually, I believe the reasoning behind racism/sexism was "I hate group X"

Just a good thought, though ;)

As a staunch advocate of common sense, I would have to say no.
I’m not so sure that most would agree with you on the common sense thing…
One of the innumerable nice qualities about not having a world government: If you don't like your country's policies and/or its corruption, you can move. In this case, unless you enjoy living on Mars, you wouldn't have that option!
So will you be moving anytime soon? After all, the US has legal abortion, and you don’t agree with that.

Nice generalization, there. Guess you slipped up on that one. :rolleyes:

The U.N. is about as affective as trying to cut pavement. It's become nothing more than a corrupt, beuarocratic mess, and the same would happen with a world government. The less people a government governs, the more effective, the more geared towards the people it becomes. A world government could never work. You'd never be able to get middle eastern countries to agree to western standards of freedom. It won't happen.
Perhaps you haven't seen my previous post.

I'd like to think that the UN works just fine the way it is if it weren't for a few... well... you know...


As far as world government goes, I don't believe it's that necessary. There would be some interesting advantages but it wouldn't work. Not in a world that includes people that re-elect and enthusiastically support men who lie to the United Nations, and base military invasions on said lies.

Nice generalization, there. Guess you slipped up on that one. :rolleyes:

The U.N. is about as affective as trying to cut pavement. It's become nothing more than a corrupt, beuarocratic mess, and the same would happen with a world government. The less people a government governs, the more effective, the more geared towards the people it becomes. A world government could never work. You'd never be able to get middle eastern countries to agree to western standards of freedom. It won't happen.

I think in general we tend to judge the UN on some very high standards. We expect it to have acheived world peace in the relatively few years since the end of WWII, solved all of the worlds problems of poverty and disease, replaced every corrupt government with the ideal form of government that none of us can agree on, and all for a dollar two fifty. What we be left for our children to do I wonder???

Perhaps you haven't seen my previous post.

Heh. *Scratches head*

I apologize :D

Especially when a few countries have a veto. I will never understand the stupidity behind that arrangement.

I think in general we tend to judge the UN on some very high standards. We expect it to have acheived world peace in the relatively few years since the end of WWII, solved all of the worlds problems of poverty and disease, replaced every corrupt government with the ideal form of government that none of us can agree on, and all for a dollar two fifty. What we be left for our children to do I wonder???

That said, the U.N. has done more harm than good. It either needs to be seriously reformed or destroyed.

Dear friend,
Please, I did not call you racist. And I don't think you are racist. I don't know you. What I said is the reasoning you are using denies people the rights to take part in decision making because you believe they are not ready for it. It is fault reasoning not racism; although, many racist and sexist have used this faulty reasoning. This same kind of reasoning was used to deny women their rights, blacks in the US their rights, women in Islamic countries their rights, subjects of colonial countries their rights and blacks in South Africa their rights.
There are sexists and racists who believe that the earth revolves around the sun too. That doesn't invalidate astronomy. Besides, I was speaking more about societies than about individuals. If there is no tradition of freedom, human rights, or participatory government in a society, I seriously question the ability of that society to effectively participate in a planetary government. That seems very straight-forward to me.

here my friends is the way to rule the world.do not abuse waht i am giveing you plese and may it be in peace.i plege my algens the the humen species and a united world. goven by coutsael the had of eche countsell moves to a hier countsell and these keep going on untell the is one big countsell made up of the reporsentativs of the countsell below it. all thoue these will take meny year's of marshel law say 10 year's of these.replace 50% of the trees in the world weth frute bering trees these will take the same amount of time to do and you farm underground these can be doune weth uv light's.put everyone in towers. to save space and to conserve the envierement and begen recalmation on the rest of the land.fund no relegen no matter how peacefull and keep it out of goverment.elemanaet classism and money these is the challing part becouses you will have to reform civalzion and how peple think.tere shudbe a offshll language for bissness but not beyond that.and to do these peacefully just as esey as a peacefull portest acarss national buderse and if that shout at you the internationl communate will be up in arm's be couse that are shuting at inosent bystader's.tere for it will be unwise for them to do so. p.s. i am a buddhist among meny othere things o and you will have to have your populess lern respect. fell free to edet these.

Actually, I believe the reasoning behind racism/sexism was "I hate group X"

Just a good thought, though ;)

One reason with many thought processes.

I’m not so sure that most would agree with you on the common sense thing…

So will you be moving anytime soon? After all, the US has legal abortion, and you don’t agree with that.



1. In a predominantly liberal forum? I wouldn't think they would lol

2. No government is perfect, but at least I have the option of moving if it gets worse. In a world government, would I?

yes reed my post

plese replay to it

Perhaps you haven't seen my previous post.
Ah, so a representative republic is the hindrance to world government, not oppressive theocracies. Got it. :rolleyes:
1. In a predominantly liberal forum? I wouldn't think they would lol
Well, you’ve got that handy sig to deal with them, don’t you? :D
2. No government is perfect, but at least I have the option of moving if it gets worse. In a world government, would I?
No you wouldn’t, but in my version of world government it wouldn’t matter. It would be a group of democratically elected people, who only concern themselves with the most important matters, thus leaving local communities and individuals to make almost all decisions for themselves.

yes that is my point to

plese replay to it

Sorry, cannot understand a word of it.

There are sexists and racists who believe that the earth revolves around the sun too. That doesn't invalidate astronomy. Besides, I was speaking more about societies than about individuals. If there is no tradition of freedom, human rights, or participatory government in a society, I seriously question the ability of that society to effectively participate in a planetary government. That seems very straight-forward to me.

I understand that you were speaking about societies as was i. Once again I was not calling you sexist or racist. I was only trying to point out that on the world stage all voices have the right to be heard whether they have experience or not. It is an evolutionary process and in a sense every country is participating in planetary government just by their actions within their own countries. What decisions they make in their countries affects what happens around the world. Small nations that allow large corporations to set up shady banking operations affects every other nation. The effectiveness of some countries may not be at the same level as other more praticed nations, but their ideas have every right to be heard and may well have the seed of a solution for world wide problems.

I understand that you were speaking about societies as was i. Once again I was not calling you sexist or racist. I was only trying to point out that on the world stage all voices have the right to be heard whether they have experience or not. It is an evolutionary process and in a sense every country is participating in planetary government just by their actions within their own countries. What decisions they make in their countries affects what happens around the world. Small nations that allow large corporations to set up shady banking operations affects every other nation. The effectiveness of some countries may not be at the same level as other more praticed nations, but their ideas have every right to be heard and may well have the seed of a solution for world wide problems.
I never said they shouldn't have the right to be heard. That any planetary government should allow everyone to be heard goes almost without saying. As a matter of fact, that's one of the things that needs to be addressed ... what about those societies which do not have a tradition of allowing their citizens to participate?

make it in the world coutatin/carter/agreement/trety

Ah, so a representative republic is the hindrance to world government, not oppressive theocracies. Got it. :rolleyes:

Well, you’ve got that handy sig to deal with them, don’t you? :D

No you wouldn’t, but in my version of world government it wouldn’t matter. It would be a group of democratically elected people, who only concern themselves with the most important matters, thus leaving local communities and individuals to make almost all decisions for themselves.


Yes, in your version that would be the case...and in my ideal government would be a Christian theocracy free of persecution and corruption, where everyone would have what they needed, like in the church in the early portion of Acts. Unfortunately for everyone, the real and the ideal are often not very similar.

I never said they shouldn't have the right to be heard. That any planetary government should allow everyone to be heard goes almost without saying. As a matter of fact, that's one of the things that needs to be addressed ... what about those societies which do not have a tradition of allowing their citizens to participate?

These kinds of problems will be solved. It may a generation, or several, but it will be solved.

Not bad on paper, however I highly doubt it would work at this point in time. There are simply too many disagreements as to how things should run as it is. Think of how it would be if all these disagreements are under one roof. Honestly, if you did unite everyone under one government I doubt it would last for more than one week before states started to seceed from it.

that 8is the resen you have mashell law for 10 year's or so

plese replay to it
I think part of what you were saying was that people would be voted to councils, and then those councils would elect on person to another council. and finally there would be one last council who would tne pass laws etc. This is kind of democracy that has good posibilities of working and deserves a chance. Everyone would have had at least one vote in the process.

That said, the U.N. has done more harm than good. It either needs to be seriously reformed or destroyed.

I think you are measuring with biased eyes. The UN has taken on many very wonderful projects even though it was hobbled by outmoded ways of doing things, dishonest bureaucrats, ineffecient systems, governmental meddling, national self-interest, clanish interference and fundmentalist bigotry. It is without question in need of reform, but the constant criticism does nothing to help.

yes that was waht i was saying

Especially when a few countries have a veto. I will never understand the stupidity behind that arrangement.

Are you saying that Algeria should have an equal say with France? How about Nepal with Russia (former seat of the USSR)?

The idea was very simple: the 5 most powerful nations on Earth were given permanent seats with veto. Otherwise, the UN would have just gone the way of the League of Nations, and been even more of a farce than it is today.

The Soviets learned that the hard way when they left before a vote and discovered the UN would be sending troops to Korea. Needless to say, that's never happened again...

Just as soon as the rest of the planet files for statehood. :)

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/11/04/president.foreignview.ap/story.usa.flag.globe.jpg

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United Planet of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one World under God, indivisible,
With Liberty, Equality and Justice for all.

Yuk :p

Not just no. No way in hell.

There are too many cultures in the world to be able to develop a set of laws that would encompass and take into account everyone's belief and culture system.

Something I was recently reading about:

Would you support a democratic and secular world government, based on the idea of democracy and separation of powers?

Personally, I think it's a pretty good idea, and a good thing for people to work for. What do other people think?

capital idea so long as i was running it or it wasnt 100% american...

Yuk :p

229 years of consecutive government can't be wrong. :D

(Which, I believe, exceeds about 95% of the world at this point... including Germany, Canada, the UK, France, Italy... ;) )

229 years of consecutive government can't be wrong. :D

(Which, I believe, exceeds about 95% of the world at this point... including Germany, Canada, the UK, France, Italy... ;) )

thats ok if you want a consecutive government >.> <.<

thats ok if you want a consecutive government >.> <.<

Dude... you're British! You play sports that take days to finish a game. Your TV shows go on for decades. Where do you think we get it from??? :D

Dude... you're British! You play sports that take days to finish a game.

And we're currently proving that we're crap at them :rolleyes:

Something I was recently reading about:

Would you support a democratic and secular world government, based on the idea of democracy and separation of powers?

Personally, I think it's a pretty good idea, and a good thing for people to work for. What do other people think?

I'd only support a world government if only the British people could vote in the elections and if it was a British government that put Britain's interests ahead of everybody elses. That would ensure the well being of Britain and then i'd be happy. If thee was to be a single currency i'd only accept the British pound.

I'd only support a world government if only the British people could vote in the elections and if it was a British government that put Britain's interests ahead of everybody elses. That would ensure the well being of Britain and then i'd be happy. If thee was to be a single currency i'd only accept the British pound.

British Empire!

Something I was recently reading about:

Would you support a democratic and secular world government, based on the idea of democracy and separation of powers?

Personally, I think it's a pretty good idea, and a good thing for people to work for. What do other people think?

I think it would be a great idea, it couldn't be implented for the forseeable furture, but I think it would work, twould be like a proper working UN, with proper finance, a strong millitary and actaul power.


Of course it would only work if I were in charge....you can call me Fruer(is that the female version of the word!)

Not just no. No way in hell.

There are too many cultures in the world to be able to develop a set of laws that would encompass and take into account everyone's belief and culture system.

Sounds like the United States to me!!!!

Sounds like the United States to me!!!!

And if we can't come up with laws to cover our little bit of the world, I think the planet would be entirely out of reach.

British Empire!

No, friend. The Canadian Empire! Because everybody likes us, they would never suspect our grand intentions! And because of our cultural diversity values...everyone would like us! It's the perfect scheme! Ever hear that song, "The Maple Leaf Forever"? It speaks volumes. Salut mon Primiere Ministre!

No, friend. The Canadian Empire! Because everybody likes us, they would never suspect our grand intentions! And because of our cultural diversity values...everyone would like us! It's the perfect scheme! Ever hear that song, "The Maple Leaf Forever"? It speaks volumes. Salut mon Primiere Ministre!

Canadian Empire?!? Get a foreign policy first! :D

No, friend. The Canadian Empire! Because everybody likes us, they would never suspect our grand intentions! And because of our cultural diversity values...everyone would like us! It's the perfect scheme! Ever hear that song, "The Maple Leaf Forever"? It speaks volumes. Salut mon Primiere Ministre!


Never work! We would all have to learn to play hockey and that other silly game with granite stones on ice. Us Minnesotians would do ok, but everybody else would revolt.

Canadian Empire?!? Get a foreign policy first! :D

That's just Paul "Martini" Martin and his minority government, and i must say the Liberal's have dissapointed me in recent months. But once the NDP wins the next election (second in less than a year if it DOES happen), everything will change! Muhahahahahaha! (Besides, we have a foreign policy... dislike terrorist, try to get dumb bush to import or quality lumber, and try to keep ourselves on Bin Laden's "undecided" list :D ). Besides the fact that ppl in the U.S. seem to be not liking us too much (my cousin told me one of classmates said he hates "those stupid Canadians"), and the fact that the Bloc Quebecuois(seperatists in my opinion) are the third most populare party in Canada....we koo. (oh, and we shall rule you MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)

By the way i was being sarcastic. We don't have a military anyways(god damn hippies! :D ).

Never work! We would all have to learn to play hockey and that other silly game with granite stones on ice. Us Minnesotians would do ok, but everybody else would revolt.

It's the syrup. They coat you with it, to slow you down, then they just walk all over ya.

Damn Maple-people.

:D

That's just Paul "Martini" Martin and his minority government, and i must say the Liberal's have dissapointed me in recent months. But once the NDP wins the next election (second in less than a year if it DOES happen), everything will change! Muhahahahahaha! (Besides, we have a foreign policy... dislike terrorist, try to get dumb bush to import or quality lumber, and try to keep ourselves on Bin Laden's "undecided" list :D ). Besides the fact that ppl in the U.S. seem to be not liking us too much (my cousin told me one of classmates said he hates "those stupid Canadians"), and the fact that the Bloc Quebecuois(seperatists in my opinion) are the third most populare party in Canada....we koo. (oh, and we shall rule you MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)

By the way i was being sarcastic. We don't have a military anyways(god damn hippies! :D ).

LOL!!

PS: I hope you don't think you're on the terrorist's undecided list. You're not. You're just on the back-burner. They'll be on you like white on rice... right after St. Patrick's in NYC is made into a mosque...

PPS: We like you! Just watching a lot of South Park...

Never work! We would all have to learn to play hockey and that other silly game with granite stones on ice. Us Minnesotians would do ok, but everybody else would revolt.

Hey now, a lot of us Yoopers are closer to being Canuckistanians than you Minnesotians are. ;)

Why, afraid it'd be Amerikkka? :rolleyes:

Yup. Big-time. :rolleyes:

HELL NO. I wouldn't support a government so large it could squash me and my liberties without notice, on whimsy alone.

Oh, wait...

Hey now, a lot of us Yoopers are closer to being Canuckistanians than you Minnesotians are. ;)

Ok, so its Canada, Minnesota and the upper P taking over the rest of the world. Piece of cake, eh!! Ya, sure. You betcha. Don't cha know. You bring the pasties.

Canadian Empire?!? Get a foreign policy first! :DCanadian empire joke aside... You must think that foreign policy equals to using the planet like one giant chess board... oh that's right I almost forgot.. you're American. :rolleyes:

Canadian empire joke aside... You must think that foreign policy equals to using the planet like one giant chess board... oh that's right I almost forgot.. you're American. :rolleyes:

What do you expect foreign policy *is*??? :)
* You have to think at least three moves ahead.
* You play to win.
* Players jockey for the best possible position and set traps for the opposition.
* Every once in awhile, the board gets reset.

"If you don't keep up with the times, it's all likely to go up in flames." -- Otto von Bismarck

Ok, so its Canada, Minnesota and the upper P taking over the rest of the world. Piece of cake, eh!! Ya, sure. You betcha. Don't cha know. You bring the pasties.

Yah, but then you guys in MN will want to form your own country, and it will be one big sticky mess. :)

Definately against. Once you get past a certain number of people it becomes impossible to create a truely representative government. It would be much better for there to be lots of democracies up to a maximum population of around 300 million people.

not jet a world government...

First we need a european government !!!

I voted yes but I'm regretting it. I really can't consider it from an economic point of view so I'm not really in a position to pass judgment. Although I tend to support a democratic government despite my lack of knowledge because I try to believe that they have the nations best interest at heart. So, supposing that it was economically viable, yes I would support a worlsd government. Although I wouldn't want the yanks or the chinks in powert. Too extreme. Somebody more like Britan or Australia, maybe one of the European governments even.

"If you don't keep up with the times, it's all likely to go up in flames." -- Otto von Bismarck
It doesn't surprise me to see that you quote Bismarck. A tyrant who denied freedoms to his own people.

not jet a world government...

First we need a european government !!!
No we dont.

No we dont.In order to effectively take on the opening chinese market and cheap textile imports, saving hundreds of thousands of jobs... yes we most definitely do.

In order to effectively take on the opening chinese market and cheap textile imports, saving hundreds of thousands of jobs... yes we most definitely do.
How does having a central European Parliament aid economic growth?

How does having a central European Parliament aid economic growth?By simply adopting a common and uniform strategy.

It doesn't surprise me to see that you quote Bismarck. A tyrant who denied freedoms to his own people.

And kept Europe virtually warless for 30 years through diplomacy.
(BTW, you're thinking of the Kaiser. Bismark did NOT have that power.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Praetonia
How does having a central European Parliament aid economic growth?

By simply adopting a common and uniform strategy.

That's the first sensible thing I've ever seen you post. :)

By simply adopting a common and uniform strategy.
ROFL. You're an American arent you? Because you clearly dont understand Europe at all. The Anglo-Scandinavian "free market socialist" approach is completely different from the French "let's work 3 days a week or we'll bring the whole country to a halt" approach. Both of them work (god knows how, in the case of the French) but both of them are hated by the other. It would never get anywhere, it would just bog down in arguments.

And kept Europe virtually warless for 30 years through diplomacy.
(BTW, you're thinking of the Kaiser. Bismark did NOT have that power.)
Sadly by forming a unified Germany and destroying the balance of power established at the Concert of Vienna, he destroyed the world as it then was by causing two world wars.

And kept Europe virtually warless for 30 years through diplomacy.
(BTW, you're thinking of the Kaiser. Bismark did NOT have that power.)
I'm thinking of Otto Von Bismark. He did fight for peace but he was an oppressive ruler.

ROFL. You're an American arent you? No I'm not. Because you clearly dont understand Europe at all. The Anglo-Scandinavian "free market socialist" approach is completely different from the French "let's work 3 days a week or we'll bring the whole country to a halt" approach. Both of them work (god knows how, in the case of the French) but both of them are hated by the other. It would never get anywhere, it would just bog down in arguments.Living in Europe as I have been since 1996, I am perfectly aware of how different one nations' system might be from another. However, it is essential for the EU to adopt a uniform economic and market strategy, otherwise hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost in the next 10-15 years. I didn't say it was going to be easy. I just said that it is necessary. The only argument that can be stated against it is the fact that it will be dificult to put in practise, but it is necessary.

No I'm not. Living in Europe as I have been since 1996, I am perfectly aware of how different one nations' system might be from another. However, it is essential for the EU to adopt a uniform economic and market strategy, otherwise hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost in the next 10-15 years. I didn't say it was going to be easy. I just said that it is necessary. The only argument that can be stated against it is the fact that it will be dificult to put in practise, but it is necessary.
Which will not happen. Or if it will it does not require a central European Parliament for it to happen, nor would the existance of such a Parliament be beneficial to it happening.

I'm thinking of Otto Von Bismark. He did fight for peace but he was an oppressive ruler.

Bismark =/= Kaiser. He was NOT a ruler.

Sadly by forming a unified Germany and destroying the balance of power established at the Concert of Vienna, he destroyed the world as it then was by causing two world wars.

Bismark did *not* cause any world wars. He was dead over 20 years when WW1 began. Blaming him for world wars is like blaming Henry Ford for the Gulf War.

Bismark did *not* cause any world wars. He was dead over 20 years when WW1 began. Blaming him for world wars is like blaming Henry Ford for the Gulf War.
*sigh* Read a history book will you.

Bismark unified the German states, creating a major European state (previously Britain, France, Prussia and Russia with subsidiaries including Spain, Portugal and later Italty) called "Germany" which was much more powerful than the rest. This upset the balance of power, leading to things like WWI.

*sigh* Read a history book will you.

Bismark unified the German states, creating a major European state (previously Britain, France, Prussia and Russia with subsidiaries including Spain, Portugal and later Italty) called "Germany" which was much more powerful than the rest. This upset the balance of power, leading to things like WWI.

Your pretentions do not become you.
Yes, thank you for the high-school level synopsis. I'm also amazed that in mentioning the Concert of Vienna, you totally fail to mention Austria-Hungary.

Did Bismarck help to create modern Germany? No doubt.

But WWI was by no means a given, and could have been halted into a minor conflict in SEVERAL ways, not least of which would have been had war erupted over the Panther incident in Morocco or had the Balkans flare up in 1911 turned into limited war. I assume I needen't mention that Germany didn't HAVE to make it a blank check, or that Franz Ferdinand's driver could have not gotten lost.

How about the minor detail that post-Napoleonic Europe was ALREADY changing by 1860 due to the rail, and that the balances were already changing vis-a-vis the land grabs in Africa? :rolleyes:

At the end of the day, it took MANY ingredients to cause WW1. Modern Germany is a PIECE of that puzzle.

Yah, but then you guys in MN will want to form your own country, and it will be one big sticky mess. :)

Yes, but it will be a frozen sticky mess; and it will be our mess.

I don't think it would work, and I don't think it would be healthy.

First, people are just wired to break into factions. It goes with our nature to want to unify, but against our nature to actually do it. That's the fact, Jack.

Secondly, at least if you're under a free nation, if you don't like your country, you can always leave if you feel passionate enough about it. With a one-world government, where would you go? It seems that you would either be forever trapped, or resort to blowing up buildings or something else insane.

It would be much easier for a world government to gain more and more power as time went on. When there are no other nations to check the radical advance of annother (such as Germany in WWII), it becomes much easier for a government to remove individual liberties without opposition. Also, a world governmnet would not be capeable of dealing with a multitude of various ethnic groups, many of which are not yet ready to live with one annother peacefully.

Bismark =/= Kaiser. He was NOT a ruler.Call him whatever you want. He was the chancellor and he oppresed the right of free press. This is common knowledge. I'm sorry if you missed the bus.

It would be much easier for a world government to gain more and more power as time went on. When there are no other nations to check the radical advance of annother (such as Germany in WWII), it becomes much easier for a government to remove individual liberties without opposition. Also, a world governmnet would not be capeable of dealing with a multitude of various ethnic groups, many of which are not yet ready to live with one annother peacefully.

On the contrary, it would be far more difficult for individual states to gain power. When other nations critisize other nations and 'check' on them they do so in self-interest and not with the will of the people. A world federal government would be elected by the people directly and reflect their will.

It would also be difficult for the federal government to gain power. Like the USA, the powers of a federal government would be regulated by a constitution and a supreme court, like the USA.

And finally, a world government would not be suddenly thrust upon all nations. It would grow slowly from nations volunterring their power, so nations willing to work together would join first, then others as they advance.

Yes, but it will be a frozen sticky mess; and it will be our mess.

Oooo! Maple pops! Oh wait, you wouldn't be part of Canada anymore....oh well. Hey, what DO you produce over there?

Never! But one day it will happen, as written in the Holy Scriptures.
Only the ones written by Tim Lahaye.

It wouldnt work out. Think about it, there would be no competition there would only be that one government. Its like saying that their will only be one gas company and if their is only one gas company the company can put the price at $100000 a gallon because they wouldnt have to keep the price down to bring in customers. It would be the only place to get gas. I know it sounds like i went off topic but... anyway the above scenario is why we cant have one united WORKING government. Please try to understand my point of view im not good with words.

Call him whatever you want. He was the chancellor and he oppresed the right of free press. This is common knowledge. I'm sorry if you missed the bus.

So did just about every European state at the time. By your logic, can I then blame Napoleon III for both Pancho Villa and the Viet Nam War? :rolleyes:

I'm glad you're mature enough to see that there can be more than one take on something, and respect the opinions of others. [/sarcasm]

So did just about every European state at the time. By your logic, can I then blame Napoleon III for both Pancho Villa and the Viet Nam War? :rolleyes:What on earth does Napolean have to do with Pancho Villa and Viet Nam? *sratches head.

I'm glad you're mature enough to see that there can be more than one take on something, and respect the opinions of others. [/sarcasm]Different opinions I may dissagree but I'll always respect,
Wrong historical facts I'll read with glee and always correct.


Poetry brought to you by canada6

What on earth does Napolean have to do with Pancho Villa and Viet Nam? *sratches head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canada6
Call him whatever you want. He was the chancellor and he oppresed the right of free press. This is common knowledge. I'm sorry if you missed the bus.

You posit that Bismarck bears responsibility for WW1 & 2 because he basically set up Germany as a country.
By that logic, Napoleon III is to blame for Pancho Villa, since HE was the one that installed the Emperor Maximillian in Mexico, thus setting the stage for Santa Ana. Napy III also made Viet Nam into a French colony (for the LONG term)... thus forcing Kennedy to back the French and get the US involved.

Absurd? It follows in your logic as applied to Bismarck.

Different opinions I may dissagree but I'll always respect,
Wrong historical facts I'll read with glee and always correct.

Thank god you've read every historically book ever written, eh? :rolleyes:
Have you read even AJP Taylor's "Bismarck"?!?

Poetry brought to you by canada6

I think I shall never see,
a conceited ass such as thee. :D
(Read: There now. Tone down your rhetoric and debate politely.)

I think that sovereign nations have the right to self-determination.

You posit that Bismarck bears responsibility for WW1 & 2 because he basically set up Germany as a country. Um... no I didn't ... you've got me confused with someone else.
(Read: There now. Tone down your rhetoric and debate politely.)You have serious etiquette issues... Look back at my posts and you'll see that the only thing I said about Bismarck was that he like many other world leaders in history, abused his powers, taking back people's freedoms. I made absolutely no mention of Germany or any World War. As a matter of fact in one of my previous posts I mentioned his role as a peace keeper.

I'll be waiting for your apology.

i never sad on my lat post here that world goverment woud be a cake walk.the frist few yese will beslow becouse you have to wriet severl daument all the way down the line to gerintey civli riets and to riet a contatoion for the world.

Oooo! Maple pops! Oh wait, you wouldn't be part of Canada anymore....oh well. Hey, what DO you produce over there?

Our best product is wild rice, Paul Bunyan, Babe his Blue Ox and Garrison Keillor. But not in that order.

Our best product is wild rice, Paul Bunyan, Babe his Blue Ox and Garrison Keillor. But not in that order.

The wild rice is yummy, and the lumberjack and the big-ass ox are freakin' cool.

You can keep Keillor, though.... ;)

never in a million years....never.

i would live in a cave b4 some rightwing neo con religous zealot or a lefty tree hugging,peace pot and microdot twit tells me how to live.

i am a pragmatic sob,but stubborn,so good luck tryin to heel me. :sniper:

Have you read even AJP Taylor's "Bismarck"?!?
Meh, you can forget anything written about him, cuz nobody actually understood him.
The only reliable work we have is "Gedanken und Erinnerungen".

Bismarck didn't want a major war, because it was clear that Germany would be caught in the middle. He tried hard for everyone to get along, and if there had been a UN then, I could almost imagine him supporting it (to a point).
It was Wilhelm II who had kind of missed the point of it all. Instead of acknowledging that Germany was a factor of disturbance, and working to sooth over that he made things worse.
If you want to blame a German, blame him, but better still, blame the Black Hand and the Austrians.