18 Jul 09
Originally posted by joe beyserRight "world control", not world order.
Create the problem, wait for a reaction, provide the solution is Standard Operating Practice. Enough of that for a century and incrimentally an organization will move a long way towards its objectives of world control.
19 Jul 09
The problem I see with a one world order is that currently people can still experience different levels of state oppression.
i.e. Over in place A they regulate for this, this and this but people are still free to do as they please on that, that and that. While in place B it's opposite, in place B the busybodies are regulating that, that and that but they haven't considered regulating this, this and this yet.
So people can still see examples of what bs they've bought down on themselves. Once it's all standardised people might begin to think it's necessary, and that will be a shame.
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe post said that having one government (I'm paraphrasing) would end war. It won't because some wars are civil wars, not international wars. With civil wars, it's irrelevant how many governments there are, because civil wars aren't about battling a neighboring nation. One government, one world order, won't change that. Thus the claim that one world order will end war is erroneous.
There are not civil wars in every country, so I fail to get your point.
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyOther countries are doing the same thing, paying interest on debts to us or to the World Bank and they'll never get to pay off the debt itself. For us and for them it's causing more problems than it's solving.
I once heard that the US pays interest on the national debt every year that is equivalent to 2 Katrina's a year. Can you imagine how many people could be helped with this kind of money instead of flushing it down the commode? It is just sickening
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperexpect the NWO to come about not too long after one nation or entity wins out in the Autonomous Infantry category. so probably sometime this millenium. or maybe even this century.
First I want to point out that this is pie in the sky, and in reality it will never happen. At least, not without some extremely significant event - a catastrophic global catastrophy or aliens landing on earth.
That being said I kind of like the idea, even if it's completely unrealistic. When it comes right down to it every country's borders ar ...[text shortened]... is all pie in the sky. But who knows what will happen between now and the next 1000 years.
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by WajomaI've thought about that and it's a valid point. What if Earth's government was oppressive?
The problem I see with a one world order is that currently people can still experience different levels of state oppression.
i.e. Over in place A they regulate for this, this and this but people are still free to do as they please on that, that and that. While in place B it's opposite, in place B the busybodies are regulating that, that and that but they ...[text shortened]... it's all standardised people might begin to think it's necessary, and that will be a shame.
But also consider how hard it would be to stop uprisings in literally every place on the planet. It's possible that the government would have to keep the people happy since dominating the world through oppression might not be feasable.
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by pawnhandlerIt depends. Most industrialized nations have not seen civil wars for a very long time. It would, at the very least, stop one type of war.
The post said that having one government (I'm paraphrasing) would end war. It won't because some wars are civil wars, not international wars. With civil wars, it's irrelevant how many governments there are, because civil wars aren't about battling a neighboring nation. One government, one world order, won't change that. Thus the claim that one world order will end war is erroneous.
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhat if the US government was oppressive? That would be bad.
I've thought about that and it's a valid point. What if Earth's government was oppressive?
But also consider how hard it would be to stop uprisings in literally every place on the planet. It's possible that the government would have to keep the people happy since dominating the world through oppression might not be feasable.
What if the world government was oppressive? That would be bad.
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat doesn't address what I said though. Oppressive regimes often do have uprisings, just like what happened in Iran. Sometimes they're succesful and sometimes they are not.
What if the US government was oppressive? That would be bad.
What if the world government was oppressive? That would be bad.
Such uprisings would be very difficult to squash on a global level, so I believe the government would be forced to adhere to the will of the people.
It's an interesting scenario to contemplate.
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYes, if there ever would be a world government, it would have to have the necessary checks and balances to avoid an oppressive government. This is beyond obvious.
That doesn't address what I said though. Oppressive regimes often do have uprisings, just like what happened in Iran. Sometimes they're succesful and sometimes they are not.
Such uprisings would be very difficult to squash on a global level, so I believe the government would be forced to adhere to the will of the people.
It's an interesting scenario to contemplate.
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThose checks and ballances are of course important but that's not what I was saying. I was saying it would be very DIFFICULT to maintain an oppressive regime on a global scale.
Yes, if there ever would be a world government, it would have to have the necessary checks and balances to avoid an oppressive government. This is beyond obvious.
19 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIf its not feasible? You mean like micro managing our health care and energy expenditures? LOL.
I've thought about that and it's a valid point. What if Earth's government was oppressive?
But also consider how hard it would be to stop uprisings in literally every place on the planet. It's possible that the government would have to keep the people happy since dominating the world through oppression might not be feasable.
You know, somehow they always find a way. Of course, if you OWN the world and have debts that you don't pay, who's going to blow the whislte on you?
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by WajomaYou raise a good point. Perhaps they will convince us that the oppression they put over us is for our "good", thereby attempting to thwart uprisings. In fact, if the majority think that the oppression is "good" for them, perhaps society at large will take care of Big Brothers dirty work when people rebel against it. You know, kinda like global warming and carbon emissions. Those who oppose it are unwittingly destroying themselves etc, etc.
The problem I see with a one world order is that currently people can still experience different levels of state oppression.
i.e. Over in place A they regulate for this, this and this but people are still free to do as they please on that, that and that. While in place B it's opposite, in place B the busybodies are regulating that, that and that but they ...[text shortened]... it's all standardised people might begin to think it's necessary, and that will be a shame.