One world government would be nice but it would be unobtainable without bloodshed or a cataclismic event collapsing most world governments. Something like the EU would likly turn into something like the USSR.
Clockwood, It's highly unlikely that the EU would become the USSR, since the majority of the members of the EU are more right-wing than left-wing. Now if you just mean totalitarian, then again, no - but it's quite likely the US will wind up like that.
i would like so see the world united, buut we are not ready forsomething like that, to much hate and arrogance and the likes around. a world with out religion would also be good, the only faith we need is in one self and our fellow monkeys. p.s. i did not vote
One thing I would like to see is more use of the swiss system - ie. allowing the people to call for binding referendums without the consent, or the assistance, and over the objections (if needed) of the executive. Direct democracy, in other words. That, and a massive drive to improve education and health systems worldwide. Mind you, I'm more likely to win the Irish, UK and US lotterys all on the same day than to see that come to pass in my lifetime Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Direct democracy? What if 51% of the world's population wants to kill the other 49% to the last child? (or do something else profoundly unpleasant)
Clockwood, Mature consideration as always Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Firstly, you are confusing "first-past-the-post" voting with direct democracy. Secondly, not all the world's peoples are as bloodthirsty as your president and his advisors.
They are notbloodthirsty. They could have carpet bombed baghdad and left no survivors and then made a pillar of skulls. They did not. They could have promised the soldiers amnesty if they went raping and pillaging. They did not. They could have taken the captive iraqi leaders and impaled them in the middle of a major iraqi mosque. They did not. In fact they took care not to cause unnecessary loss of life.
Clockwood, They could also have avoided war. They didn't. They presented false evidence to further the case for war and when they failed to make their case, unilaterally invaded a soverign nation, undermining hundreds of years of diplomatic work to do so. They bombed civilian targets with both precise, conventional and cluster munitions. Basicly, you'd have to have been born yesterday to think that they're not a savage bunch of bastards.
Bloodthirsty wouyld be to leave the Iraqis to be slaughtered and oppressed for the next hundred years under saddam and his descendents. Do you know how hard it is to fight a war without killing any civillians? (especially when they have anti aircraft guns in residential front yards) VERY! We did it as surgically as we could. Could you have uprooted the regiem better in Bush's position? As for diplomatic methods do you really think sadistic Saddam was ready to say "Ok, you win. Your inspectors can do whatever they want without minders, we will treat our people right, and I will now institute a truely democratic government" and mean it?
Bloodthirsty would have been to support and aid saddam's regime in full knowlege of what he was doing ... oh, wait, the US did that. Bloodthirsty would have been to abandon nonviolent effective methods ... oh, wait, the US did that. Yes, that's why I protested the war before it started, in fact that's why nearly everyone that protested the war actually went out and protested. By dropping cluster bombs into residential areas in Hilla and Baghdad? By targeting civilian targets like hospitals, universities and hotels? "Sadistic Saddam". Geez, don'tcha love it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No, I don't think he would have done so for fun. But I don't think there was any reason to jump the gun and not give Blix his three months. And frankly, if the US was so concerned about iraqi citizens, it wouldn't have given Hussein $300 million in credit to buy weapons less than a fortnight after Halajba was gassed by Hussein - and remember, this wasn't a credit note, this was a public meeting between Rumsfeld and Hussein. And tell me, if the only point in the war was to topple Hussein, why a full-scale invasion? Was franks so incompetent that the only way he (a professional military man) could think of to kill one iraqi was to kill lots until he got the right one? The fact was this war was planned a long time back and the mad scramble for an excuse was purely an afterthough. That's bloodthirsty to my mind.
Not many choices up there. A world gov. is unrealistic in the forseeable future. I would say there is at present few super countries, since the US is the only superpower, and I suppose China, Russia, and maybe India could be construed as 'super countries', if you're basing it on geographic size or population, and not military might/economic strength. I'd also say there are a lot of unions similar to the EU, considering NAFTA is an equivalent economic union; also, there is the OAS and SEATO, which, like the EU are a little more than just economic alliances or a strictly military alliance, scuh as NATO. I don't really see the advantage of more states, although if some of those countries in Africa or the Mideast want to alter some of those colonial boundaries, I suppose that would be their choice. I voted for the present system, although again, I don't see it that different from the 2nd choice, although this system definitely needs some serious tweaking.
I voted for the world as it is today, We have the World Cup (football) every 4 years, ( the USA has never won it and England has only won it once) so even Allah's Mathematics surely can't complain about it. The European Championship (more football) in between that, The Premier League every season and when you want a change we in the UK (France & Italy too) have the six nations rugby championship. Sorry South Africa, Australia & New Zealand, you may be better at rugby than us but you don't have the six nations so you lose out. A sunny Sunday afternoon in a country pub beer garden drinking real ale knowing that sometimes there is something to be happy about.
A (real) world One that is set up like this one. http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/stories/2003/02/15/howToSaveTheWorld.html I know it is a little long, but it is worth reading -- you may be able to help. For, IMO, it's the only way we will make it another millennium.
one world, freedom of religion, each country in effect being a state, true equality for everyone, dedicated to an equilibrium of resources, not totally free market, but marginally controlled, dedication to space exploration, dedication to ecological equilibrium....So a united green party society =) the great thing about a world under one government is that you dont need an army
Sure you would need an army. How else to you keep the "states" in check? What keeps them from covertly making an army of their own and then trying to take over their defensless neighbors? What happens if something civil arises that is too big for the police to handle? How do you quell rebellion if there is ever an attempted civil war or MASS riots? A little bit further in the future we might not be the only world around. (space colonies, bgm aliens, etc) Dont want to be completely defensless. Needless to say, you would need some sort of army even with a world government.
