Is a World Order a bad idea?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
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.

if only we had some sort of catastrophic catastrophy

Originally posted by voltaire
if only we had some sort of catastrophic catastrophy

Worse yet, a cataclysmic catastrophic catastrophy !!!

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Instead of using Iran as a example,Stalins U.S.S.R. is more like it. A good book that describes how he was able to control such a huge population is "the Gulag Archipelago".I think this could be repeated on a much bigger scale,perhaps in our hypothetical world order/one world government.

How strange to choose as your model for One World Government the system that LOST out to the U.S. system during the Cold War. Why not a network of murderous kleptomaniac dictators like Samosa, Soeharto, Pinochet, Mobutu, Marcos, Noriega, Hussein and others with their feudal-like corrupt bureaucracies, death squads, 'Dirty Wars', Operation Condors, and '98% vote Yes' electoral systems and their 'investment friendly' fiefdoms?

Originally posted by FMF
How strange to choose as your model for One World Government the system that LOST out to the U.S. system during the Cold War. Why not a network of murderous kleptomaniac dictators like Samosa, Soeharto, Pinochet, Mobutu, Marcos, Noriega, Hussein and others with their feudal-like corrupt bureaucracies, death squads, 'Dirty Wars', Operation Condors, and '98% vote Yes' electoral systems and their 'investment friendly' fiefdoms?

Stalin did not LOOSE out to the U.S.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Stalin did not LOOSE out to the U.S.

Stalin's system did. We're not talking about personalities here. We're talking about systems. Why you would choose a system that only lasted a few decades and then collapsed, rather than the system that preceded it and out lasted it, is baffling.

Originally posted by FMF
Stalin's system did. We're not talking about personalities here. We're talking about systems. Why you would choose a system that only lasted a few decades and then collapsed, rather than the system that preceded it and out lasted it, is baffling.

He probably subscribes to Marx's view, that capitalism has a use by date.

Originally posted by FMF
Stalin's system did. We're not talking about personalities here. We're talking about systems. Why you would choose a system that only lasted a few decades and then collapsed, rather than the system that preceded it and out lasted it, is baffling.

"Instead of using Iran as a example,Stalins U.S.S.R. is more like it."

this is what I said.notice STALIN! not the ussr under kruchev, breshnev,gorbachev,or anybody else! the context of the statement was about how to have a system of control w/out rebellion.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
"Instead of using Iran as a example,Stalins U.S.S.R. is more like it."

this is what I said.notice STALIN! not the ussr under kruchev, breshnev,gorbachev,or anybody else! the context of the statement was about how to have a system of control w/out rebellion.

Stalin's system failed. Why is it your template for the NWO when the system of U.S. backed 'national security states' proved more effective and durable at the task of repressing people while not having the economic downside of Stalinism?

Originally posted by FMF
Stalin's system failed. Why is it your template for the NWO when the system of U.S. backed 'national security states' proved more effective and durable at the task of repressing people while not having the economic downside of Stalinism?

as usual you are out in left field some where. we were talking about oppressive regimes having uprisings,iran was an example.i used Stalins russia as a example where the government ruled w/an iron fist and there were no uprisings and that it was plausible to do that on a larger scale.
you love to take things out of context

Originally posted by utherpendragon
as usual you are out in left field some where. we were talking about oppressive regimes having uprisings,iran was an example.i used Stalins russia as a example where the government ruled w/an iron fist and there were no uprisings and that it was plausible to do that on a larger scale.
you love to take things out of context

No i don't. The context is very explicit. Templates for an oppressive NWO. You chose Stalin's system. His system lasted for a short time and would quite obviously not work on a larger scale. Meanwhile, the system of oppression that lasted for far far longer across swathes of South America, Africa and Asia, which farmed out the repression to local proxies and payrolled thugs - a.k.a. the U.S. 'sphere of influence' - is a shoo in as a template for a NWO that can snuff out local difficulties and stubborn resistence. Far more plausible.

Originally posted by FMF
No i don't. The context is very explicit. Templates for an oppressive NWO. You chose Stalin's system. His system lasted for a short time and would quite obviously not work on a larger scale. Meanwhile, the system of oppression that lasted for far far longer across swathes of South America, Africa and Asia, which farmed out the repression to local proxies and pay ...[text shortened]... for a NWO that can snuff out local difficulties and stubborn resistence. Far more plausible.

ok why did stalins system fail?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
ok why did stalins system fail?

It was unsustainable.

Originally posted by FMF
It was unsustainable.

no. it was because of the cold war and the arms race as well as all the baggage that goes along w/being enemies w/the u.s.
if it was a nwo,no competition,all the resources in the world,they would flourish and have complete order

Originally posted by utherpendragon
if it was a nwo,no competition,all the resources in the world,they would flourish and have complete order

No. The U.S. system of outsourced, decentralized repression prevailed and would be the way to go forward with the NWO. Stalin passed away in 1953. The U.S.S.R. didn't disintegrate till 1990-1. I would say that the cold war and the arms race as well as all the baggage that goes along w/being enemies w/the U.S. had nothing whatsoever to do with the unsustainability of Stalinism. It's a poor choice for a NWO template, utherpendragon. I understand your earnestness. And your 'patriotism'. But I would say these emotions have rendered your analysis and hypothesis for the future ahistorical. And anachronsitically ideological, too. You are seemingly oblivious to the very effective form of repression that flourished under the U.S. sphere of influence during the 75 years that the U.S.S.R. was in existence, and outlasted it by a long chalk.

Originally posted by FMF
No. The U.S. system of outsourced, decentralized repression prevailed and would be the way to go forward with the NWO. Stalin passed away in 1953. The U.S.S.R. didn't disintegrate till 1990-1. I would say that the cold war and the arms race as well as all the baggage that goes along w/being enemies w/the U.S. had nothing whatsoever to do with the unsustai ...[text shortened]... ce during the 75 years that the U.S.S.R. was in existence, and outlasted it by a long chalk.

I agree w/ you about the u.s. repression.

I say the u.s. would not be a good example of a nwo because its barely holding together. its emploding