Date: 9/25/2003 1:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
So what happens if a group of people crash airplanes into your buildings and the "World" doesn't think that you should use force against them?  |
Date: 9/25/2003 5:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 24813
This really has soooo many angles to it, but I'll try to concisely mention a few, on and slightly off topic ... While the concept of globalization may have high aims (as did communism) of creating a unified world, free of the disparity we now see between nations, it really seems like nothing more than the creation of an unstable global welfare state. Ideally inherent in this concept is a central ruling ideology accepted by all former nations, which would eliminate the fear and threat of war, bringing general world peace. However, human nature prohibits world peace from living up to its utopian connotations, as a government unopposed is a greater threat to individual freedom than the polarization of nearly equal powers as seen over the past few decades. In the absence of threats, the societal dependence on government would only decrease, taking the power of its leaders with it. How can a government appear useful to a society free of fear, whose needs appear to be met? A centralized world government would require perpetually increased, ever-present vigilance and control over the population to maintain the status quo, again because of the widespread human desire to acquire power and status. Independent nations and cultures provide individual populations with a needed sense of pride, an outlet to feel (in reality or not) somehow better than the next guy (thereby providing comfort), an outlet that would in time likely shift even further to violence under a global umbrella.  |
Date: 9/25/2003 6:32:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 36704
guess if you allow yourself to be part of the "world" wildbob if they so no you can't do anything  |
|
Date: 9/25/2003 6:34:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 36704
I agree Gecko, thanks for your comment. |
Date: 9/25/2003 7:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 32806
Pre-emptive strikes on other nations as they supposedly pose a threat, hmmm, does that right extend to EVERY nation??
Remember that the strike on the WTC was done by Al-Qaeda which has no proven links to Iraqs last regime which was also no threat to a superpower at all. Invading Afghanistan to remove that threat by Al-Qaeda (remember the name?) has proven to be totally ineffective at damaging such an organistion.
Globalisation is a fine idea but completely untenable with EVERY nation run by corrupt, powerhungry, selfinterested and unaccountable politicians.
To answer the original post question >>> Could be good one day but not today, not this year, not this century, not this millenium. We have to grow up as a species first.
 |
Date: 9/25/2003 7:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 160
Interesting. The scriptures say something about this and we know where it is heading, One world government. Next Religion will be abolished as was prophesied. I am speechless at this moment so I will excuse myself. Thanks for taking the time to post this.  |
Date: 9/25/2003 8:31:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 36704
pamy jo's speechless, should we all be worried?  |
|
Date: 9/25/2003 8:31:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 36704
"has proven to be totally ineffective at damaging such an organisation" show the proof of the statement with actual facts and documents please |
Date: 9/26/2003 8:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
If gloabalization was to come, would it cure poverty? Would it cure the disease of war? Would it cure greed? If the answer to any is no... then no. I think it would, perhaps, lead to the many dominated by the few. What does it profit a man [nation] to gain the world but lose its soul?  |
Date: 9/27/2003 2:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 62116
First of all... we, the citizens of America, have no proof of who crashed planes into our precious buildings. We know what the government tells us. I'd trust Helen Keller to forecast the weather before I'd believe anything this governemt tells me. As far as globalization- it's not, nor would it ever be, a good idea. This "International Financial Facility" sounds more like a raffle than anything. Indeed, we do need some way of stopping countries, including our own, from waging war on a whim, but this just isn't the way to do it. ~Nytwolf~  |
|
Date: 9/27/2003 1:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 32806
Go read it up for yourself Base. Every time there is a comment YOU do not agree with you say the same thing..."back it up with documented evidence"..... its there in our national press every day if you take the time to go beyond the cartoon page and read international news. The ONLY part of Afghanistan that can be said to be under the installed governments control is the capital Kabul. The rest of the country is again rulled by local warlords...more proof u want?? Have you not seen the news of the bombings done by Al-Qarda since the USA successfully bombed them out of existense? If not, you need to pick up the newspapers or watch tv or listen to the radio, these are all easy ways to see that Al-Qaeda are still very active. |
|
Date: 9/28/2003 9:50:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 36704
Unlike you Sagi10 I don't get my information from tabloids. Maybe you should quit letting tabloid reporters do your thinking for you and start doing your own research. Afghanistan is a mess but more than just Kabul is under an installed government. |
