The UN, a basis for a NWO or "worthless organization and should be abolished."

**1979** · 09 Apr 11,, 15:38

Originally Posted by Doktor

Can someone tell me what are the benefits for an individual from this "United world"? I can't think of any

well, if that individual is a member of the World Government , larger incentives than being member of the regular Whackistan government.

**Chunder** · 09 Apr 11,, 19:02

Originally Posted by marx

Ok, well it seems quite obvious that I will not be persuading any one towards my ideas. However i do have a question, WHY would you go against a single government rule?

Because, like all centralised government, they are not in touch with the realities of local governance & local issues, whilst taking by far the most out of any form of government whilst committing the least funding to local government. Add a state level to that, and it is rinsed & repeated.

Central government has a cancerous effect on what people expect from their government. I.E the government can afford X for X cause, far removed from basic essentials. Central government has inherent evils of injustice on localities by using the tyranny of apathy of the majority to flood out the ant holes of communities - and that is in a democracy!

And frankly, I don't want some moron sending my mates off to die, because of some tribal war in some hellhole country, as part of some 'international community" response.

The biggest threat to society is politicians with idealistic convictions of what the state should be to people, instead of politicians concentrating on equitable governance. It creates a state beholden to unwanted or onerous acts in the long term, precipitated by an electorate that doesn't want to loose it's benefits, having the end effect of strangulating the very idealistic convictions that were created in the first place.

And as OoE pointed out - why the heck would I want even more people, with vastly different principles - deciding what I can do?

**Parihaka** · 09 Apr 11,, 23:49

Originally Posted by Doktor

Can someone tell me what are the benefits for an individual from this "United world"? I can't think of any

You get to pay more tax, and if you're religious no one is allowed to criticize your religion.

**Shek** · 10 Apr 11,, 01:15

Originally Posted by gunnut

Can you inform me with a statement of fact on what form of government Iran has?

Islam doesn't require you to convert. You can submit or die.

gunnut,
That's not a true statement. You can choose to live as a different class of people as long as you are a person of the book and pay your dhimmi tax. In some Islamic states, this isn't the case and the approach to other religions is more Western in approach. In others, it is the case. In some non-state "states," your statement is true.

**Doktor** · 10 Apr 11,, 03:02

Originally Posted by Parihaka

You get to pay more tax, and if you're religious no one is allowed to criticize your religion.

If I have RPGs and IEDs to defend my religion, I doubt someone will come to collect that higher tax. Also, I could go in some sh!thole without passport where noone knows me and will live happily ever after.

Even more, I'll change identity and run for a spot in the NWO government bodies. For health sake (immunity)

**marx** · 10 Apr 11,, 04:13

Although I do see where many of you are coming from, I think that the benefits out weigh the cons. Poverty levels will decrease with the availability of more resources and a stronger economy, National debts will become "a thing of the past" which will lead to less tension between countries. Countries like the U.S. will no longer be policing the world, rather the international organization will send in troops where needed, which will be less than required now. And with the U.S. not policing the world will decrease the hostility towards them and any other country they support. No longer will powerful countries support dictators just for their resources (the U.S. supporting countries in the middle east for oil). Dictators would no longer exist due to an international court system which would help to reduce their power and attempt to create a free society with out the use of force. Does this sound like the U.N.? Yes, and no. This organization will actually be able to do something about global problems (genocide) and will not allow one country to police the world.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Apr 11,, 04:25

Originally Posted by marx

Although I do see where many of you are coming from,

No, you don't. We lived it. You have yet to read it. And you certainly do not know it.

Originally Posted by marx

I think that the benefits out weigh the cons.

You are wrong. The countries who practised your ideals were far worst off than those who did niot.

Originally Posted by marx

Poverty levels will decrease with the availability of more resources and a stronger economy,

Resources are finite. We live on one planet. We cannot add mass to this planet. But at 17 years old, I am speaking over your head.

Originally Posted by marx

National debts will become "a thing of the past"

You do know that we won WWII because of national debt.

Originally Posted by marx

which will lead to less tension between countries.

You're arguing for the collapse of credit. In short, what you're arguing for is that when the United States gives her word, it is worth no more than when Rwanda gives her word. No, I am NOT putting words in your mouth. This is what you're arguing for.

Originally Posted by marx

Countries like the U.S. will no longer be policing the world,

Right. We can depend on Al Qaida volunteers.

Originally Posted by marx

rather the international organization will send in troops where needed, which will be less than required now.

And these troops, whose oath do they swear?

Originally Posted by marx

And with the U.S. not policing the world will decrease the hostility towards them

The 3 largest force contributors to UNPROFOR were the British, French, and Canadians. United Nations SC Resolution 1970 is commanded by LGen Charlie Bouchard, a Canadian.

Son, you know a hell of alot less than you pretend to know.

**Doktor** · 10 Apr 11,, 04:35

All the people will group in several highly developed areas seeking better wages. This will leave the world with less peasants = food shortage. Living in high density areas will increase the pollution - shortens life span.

The resources are available now, instead of todays governments the corporations will say who gets what

National debts will become regional debts, unless you stop the banks to borrow money

Someone that I don't know their names will send me 6000 miles from home to calm some riots

There will be regionalism instead of nationalism which will lead to the same - hate towards other group

The powerful corporations will support local leaders in persuade for resources

The world court will be implemented under which law?

Will work 200+ days a year paying taxes

World government will tell my Federal government to tell my State government to tell my local government they have prior things to do then my street

The drugs will have no borders, control points etc etc

I can go on and on and on...

**DOR** · 10 Apr 11,, 04:39

If I'm following this discussion well, here's where I think we are---

Chunder assumes any world government would have to be centralized. Delete that thought, and see where you end up.
Parihaka assumes any world government will demand more taxes . . . maybe for defense against, er, foreign diplomacy with, um . . . OK, delete that notion.
Shek introduced me to the notion of "dhimmi," for which I am grateful. Wikipedia says, "Dhimma provides rights of residence in return for taxes." (among other things). Radical, indeed! It is said to apply to all non-Muslims not living in or near Mecca.
Doktor seems to think violence is the solution, a notion I find unhelpful.
And, our OOE seems to think we've already seen some kind of world government, "We lived it," which I find very curious.

Lots of bias here.

- - - - -

Just for clarity, my "delete" above means nothing more than, "start over without that thought and see where the discussion might go."
Nothing more than that.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Apr 11,, 04:45

Originally Posted by DOR

And, our OOE seems to think we've already seen some kind of world government, "We lived it," which I find very curious.

Lots of bias here.

The bias is real. I was UNPROFOR. My Generals saw ethnic cleansing and genocide upon approval of the UN.

Can you argue otherwise? Why are you arguing against my factual arguements in favour of your fantasies?

**Doktor** · 10 Apr 11,, 04:54

Originally Posted by DOR

If I'm following this discussion well, here's where I think we are---

Chunder assumes any world government would have to be centralized. Delete that thought, and see where you end up.

Of course it will be centralized. Name one government that isn't. No matter what you do and how you make things up you will need people to run that organization and their bodies.

Parihaka assumes any world government will demand more taxes . . . maybe for defense against, er, foreign diplomacy with, um . . . OK, delete that notion.

Maybe for salaries for the above mentioned bureaucracy? Subsidies for less developed...

Shek introduced me to the notion of "dhimmi," for which I am grateful. Wikipedia says, "Dhimma provides rights of residence in return for taxes." (among other things). Radical, indeed! It is said to apply to all non-Muslims not living in or near Mecca.

What's free and equal in that?

Doktor seems to think violence is the solution, a notion I find unhelpful.

I don't think the violence is the solution. Look one week behind what happened in Afghanistan where UN workers were killed over burning a book 4000 miles away from a man in no way related to them.

And, our OOE seems to think we've already seen some kind of world government, "We lived it," which I find very curious.

Look at former Yugoslavia, or USSR.

Lots of bias here.

Indeed
- - - - -

Just for clarity, my "delete" above means nothing more than, "start over without that thought and see where the discussion might go."
Nothing more than that.

I did rethink all of the above, will you?

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Apr 11,, 05:09

Originally Posted by DOR

Doktor seems to think violence is the solution, a notion I find unhelpful.
And, our OOE seems to think we've already seen some kind of world government, "We lived it," which I find very curious.

Lots of bias here.

- - - - -

Just for clarity, my "delete" above means nothing more than, "start over without that thought and see where the discussion might go."
Nothing more than that.

Mr. O'Rear. It is very clear you are the one who are IGNORING THE FACTS and this is quite surprising. You knew I was UNPROFOR over 10 years ago. You knew I saw combat wearing the blue beret. You knew I had the legal authority to impose international will over the local populace and you knew that I did just that.

You knew all these things ... and yet, you pretend to the the innocent here.

NOT GOING TO WORK.

**JAD_333** · 10 Apr 11,, 05:52

One empire under one centralized government will never survive without a completely homogenous culture and a single language.

History is clear on that. The larger an empire grows the greater the demands for autonomy . Autonomy leads to independence and sovereignty.

The example of Roman and British empires and the Turkish Caliphate is a cautionary tale.

**marx** · 10 Apr 11,, 06:19

But at 17 years old, I am speaking over your head.

There is no need to insult me, I have been mature through out this discussion and i am surprised that a person such as you would be the first to start the insults.

In short, what you're arguing for is that when the United States gives her word, it is worth no more than when Rwanda gives her word

Incorrect, although the U.S. does indeed police the world with out the agreement of much of the world, when ever they do not join in to a conflict that a coalition is entering, they are looked upon with shame. Then when they do enter a conflict, they are accused of unlawful intervention. The system i am proposing will stop this "finger pointing" and no more blame will be placed on countries.

I still do not understand why you are being so narrow minded about this proposal. Even though i have lowered my standards from a single government to an organization which has military and court power to countries that join it, that will also provide humanitarian aid to countries that need it. Yes i understand that you were part of UNPROFOR and feel strongly about it, even though i DO NOT understand what you went through/saw and i have no idea what your experience entitled (just so we are clear about that).

You do know that we won WWII because of national debt.

WWII actually started because of national debt.
We won the war for the following reasons (long description following( If you do not feel like reading about WWII skip this section))
In Europe

- Germany and Italy tried to expand their empire too much, in North Africa, due to bad morale and Strategy The British And its colonies were able to repel the Axis at the Siege of Malta, Second Battle of El Alamein which was the Turning point in Africa, and the Battle of Britain which stopped the German advance into the west, the Germans and Italians were repelled from the Middle east by the British forces, and the Siege of Stalingrad which turned out disastrous for the Germans and stopped their advance into the east.

- German U-Boats attacked British merchant ships which proved effective at first until the British navy and merchant ships devised new ways of transport and defense of the merchant ships

- Germany and Italy was under constant bombardment by mainly the RAF and occasionally the US air force by the time of 1944 90% of German cities were destroyed.

In the Pacific

- The Empire of Japan underestimated the United States ability to make war in the Pacific.

- The Japanese defeat at the battle of the midway proved decisive for the American navy and turned the tide of naval warfare in the pacific

- The Japanese army lacked the resources to continue warfare and the British in Burma were decisively pushing the Japanese in Burma Back killing some 400.000 Japanese soldiers on their path, the US Army was capturing Island after Island getting ever closer to mainland Japan.

-The Chinese, Russians, And British were Liberating parts of China occupied by the Japanese.

For Both

- The Axis Powers were out numbered and out thought . While the Allies were poring more and more Troops into the war, the Axis were loosing ground and resources very quickly. The Germans were virtually surrounded in Europe and blockaded by the British, and the Russians coming in from the east killing 50% of the German army in the war, the Allies landing in Normandy rapidly Liberating France. And the Allies Steaming through Italy.

Another Viewpoint

No, that is not why they lost. Japan lost because it fought on three large scale fronts (China, India, and the pacific).

and Germany had some advanced technology. their tiger tank was basically a moving anti-tank gun. they lost because they invaded Russia, and they were horribly equipped for winter warfare, and had summer equipment when they invaded Russia. Why? Because Hitler thought they would fall before winter.

The Soviets played a key role in keeping the Germans occupied and taking Poland while the other allies liberated Paris. In the end, Russia invaded Berlin ended the war in Europe.