World government (1 Viewer)

[Blue Hobgoblin]

What we need is a world government. The UN is increasingly inept and can't seem to get much done. What the world needs is a strong, democratically eleted world congress that has a standing army and can successfully fight terrorism, come down hard on rogue nations and human rights abusers, and end poverty, hunger, and suffering throughout the world.

Now don't think I want a world tyranny. This government would be democratically elected and officials could be removed from office. There could be a system similar to federalism that gives some power to individual nations and allows them to keep some sovereignty and their own government and military.

But a strong world government, as long as its a democratic, open one, could do alot of good in solving the major problems facing the world today.

 

[anomaly]

I agree for the most part. I have some questions though. You say this gov't "should come down hard on rogue nations" if you do this is it really a "world" gov't? Perhaps this world gov't could show these nations why it is beneficial for them not to act the way they are. A world gov't with its own army? Maybe peacekeepers but I would not my world gov't to have its own army. This system would require enormous checks and balances, to keep such a huge system fair. And this gov't should end poverty? Is it collecting taxes or something? No, no, this would never work with a capitalist economy. The only way your world government would work is with some sort of utopian socialist economy. and a utopian socialist economy is just that: an unattainable utopia. I hate to say this, fellow Dem, but your idea seems an idealist dream. It's not going to happen.

 

[Blue Hobgoblin]

I agree for the most part. I have some questions though. You say this gov't "should come down hard on rogue nations" if you do this is it really a "world" gov't? Perhaps this world gov't could show these nations why it is beneficial for them not to act the way they are. A world gov't with its own army? Maybe peacekeepers but I would not my world gov't to have its own army. This system would require enormous checks and balances, to keep such a huge system fair. And this gov't should end poverty? Is it collecting taxes or something? No, no, this would never work with a capitalist economy. The only way your world government would work is with some sort of utopian socialist economy. and a utopian socialist economy is just that: an unattainable utopia. I hate to say this, fellow Dem, but your idea seems an idealist dream. It's not going to happen.

I wouldn't want it to take away people's property, and I would want a largely capitalist system, although maybe some socialistic programs like international food and medical programs. And I do think it would need lots of checks and balances.

I know this idea probably wouldn't work, but at least it's an idea. Something major needs to be done to solve the major problems of the world.

 

[liberal1]

Great idea, only there is too much conflict between certain nations for it to work. Plus, the smaller nations that aren't a part of NATO or other already established treaties will feel themselves being pushed around and manipulated. Great idea again, but it won't work.

 

[alienken]

1 more vote in the Won't work catagory. Too much power in fewer hands.The at the UN and the oil for food program.(Really covered only by fox news,why do you think that is?) It is hard to hold them accountable because their Pres. does not answer to anyone. " Absolute power curupts absolutly." I know I would look smart if I knew who said that, but I don't.

 

[anomaly]

alienken, perhaps you truly aren't from earth. I mean, that is a TERRIBLE bumper sticker idea!!
Also, Fox News hasn't really been talking about the fact that the US was also involved in the scandal, granted to a lesser degree.

 

[Pacridge]

1 more vote in the Won't work catagory. Too much power in fewer hands.The at the UN and the oil for food program.(Really covered only by fox news,why do you think that is?) It is hard to hold them accountable because their Pres. does not answer to anyone. " Absolute power curupts absolutly." I know I would look smart if I knew who said that, but I don't.

That's completely false. Though Fox does latch on to stuff like this and drill it into the ground. It's like they run this on a 20 minute loop. What is there no other news in the world?

 

[Pacridge]

alienken, perhaps you truly aren't from earth. I mean, that is a TERRIBLE bumper sticker idea!!
Also, Fox News hasn't really been talking about the fact that the US was also involved in the scandal, granted to a lesser degree.

How was the US involved in this mess?

 

[shuamort]

How was the US involved in this mess?

A naturalized U.S. citizen working as an Iraqi agent pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges that he lobbied for the repeal of United Nations sanctions on Saddam Hussein's government while making millions brokering the sale of Iraqi oil.

The charges against Samir Vincent are the first in the U.S. government's probe into how Hussein and others manipulated the oil-for-food program, created by the United Nations in 1996 as a humanitarian exemption to sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

From 1992 to 2003, Vincent took instructions from Iraqi officials in their bid to convince U.S. and UN officials to repeal the sanctions imposed on Iraq, prosecutors said. Vincent never registered with the U.S. government as an Iraqi agent, as required by law.

In an attempt to have the sanctions repealed, Vincent also lobbied former officials of the U.S. government "who maintained close contacts to high-ranking members of both the Clinton and Bush administrations," prosecution documents said. The U.S. officials weren't identified

 

[Pacridge]

A naturalized U.S. citizen working as an Iraqi agent pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges that he lobbied for the repeal of United Nations sanctions on Saddam Hussein's government while making millions brokering the sale of Iraqi oil.

The charges against Samir Vincent are the first in the U.S. government's probe into how Hussein and others manipulated the oil-for-food program, created by the United Nations in 1996 as a humanitarian exemption to sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

From 1992 to 2003, Vincent took instructions from Iraqi officials in their bid to convince U.S. and UN officials to repeal the sanctions imposed on Iraq, prosecutors said. Vincent never registered with the U.S. government as an Iraqi agent, as required by law.

In an attempt to have the sanctions repealed, Vincent also lobbied former officials of the U.S. government "who maintained close contacts to high-ranking members of both the Clinton and Bush administrations," prosecution documents said. The U.S. officials weren't identified

Very interesting. I must say I haven't seen this on CNN, MS NBC or any network for that matter. I'd be willing to bet you're never going to see it on Fox. If you do it will be a five second bleep in the middle of their 20 minute loop of how the French, German's and Russians were all against Bush and the great things he's doing for the planet.

This guy was a business man with "close ties" to the US government? Wonder exactly how close? Really from reading the article I get the impression he was acting more on his own, for his own interests. And basically that interest was, as it always seems to be, money.

 

[globalvision]

alienken, couple of people talk about corruption, but i think lord acton wrote, "absolute power corrupts absolutley" though its probably been used by many others as well

 

[globalvision]

blue hobgoblin

many people have proposed a world government, George monbiot in the UK and many other cosmopolitan writes. the problem is that states are sovereign actors i doubt very much that the American people would like to be told what to do by a government that would represent mainly Asia if you base it on population. people have different cultures and religions to believe that a world government could represent all of these seems unlikely. we can not shake of who we are and it seems unlikely that we can put the common good over the national good. for the time being at least a world government does not seem a likely option.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

The anime fan in me instantly thinks Macross. . .

Actually guys, this isn't such a far fetched idea. Look at our current United Nations. Each country sends their representative to the UN. Resolutions (laws) are drafted and voted on. The UN draws from member countries militias to raise armies when needed.

Ah, but the question is, does it work?

 

[Squawker]

Look at our current United Nations. Each country sends their representative to the UN. Resolutions (laws) are drafted and voted on. The UN draws from member countries militias to raise armies when needed. Ah, but the question is, does it work?

In a word, No ! The UN needs a total overhaul from top to bottom. These world bodies become so bloated with bureaucracy that they become ineffective and obsolete within 20 years.

 

[alienken]

Is one world gov. a good idea? 4 words for you. OIL FOR FOOD SCANDLE. Any group will always have problems but who does their leader answer to? It is hard to get Koffe Anon (I guessed on this spelling) to cooperate with the investigation because there is nothing in place to force him to do so. Does anyone really think they can accurately police themselves? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. (someone help me out here, who am I quoting?)

 

[gypsy0032]

It is only a matter of time before we see the world under one government. It is going to happen, but not for another 100 years or so.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

It is only a matter of time before we see the world under one government. It is going to happen, but not for another 100 years or so.

And it MUST happen. It's the only way we'll achieve any kind of real world peace and stop millions of people from starving to death.

 

[alienken]

And it MUST happen. It's the only way we'll achieve any kind of real world peace and stop millions of people from starving to death.

I hope it never happens. If it happened who would be in charge? Who would be the President of the world? Remember absolute power corrupts absolutly. It won't bring peace.The only way to have world peace is to invent a device that will suck out all of the hatred and greed from everyone in the world.Until something like that happens there will never be peace!

 

[anomaly]

I hope it never happens. If it happened who would be in charge? Who would be the President of the world? Remember absolute power corrupts absolutly. It won't bring peace.The only way to have world peace is to invent a device that will suck out all of the hatred and greed from everyone in the world.Until something like that happens there will never be peace!

Not really going to argue anything here, but just asking this alien a question: would you be in favor of a 'world gov't' if it was a US led world gov't? For example, what if the president of the world was Bush, would you be in favor then of a world gov't.

 

[GarzaUK]

Not really going to argue anything here, but just asking this alien a question: would you be in favor of a 'world gov't' if it was a US led world gov't? For example, what if the president of the world was Bush, would you be in favor then of a world gov't.

Anomaly the world wouldn't vote for Bush, he is a simple man. Even in the 2000 election the world would have voted Gore.
World likes politicans like Blair (not his policies, but his character), see the difference between Blair and Bush.

Blair uses big words, stands up straight, was a lawyer.
Bush knows a few big words like "prevail" and "resolve" and uses them over and over again, he also holds the record for saying freedom the most time in a speech, plus he has simplistic sayings "Like Dead and Alive." "Bring em on" (charming), he hunches over the podium. Good Lord give me Roosevelt, Lincoln, or Kennedy anyday - now THEY were war leaders.

Only America would have a leader like Bush, it is not the policies, it is the attitute of the man.

 

[Schweddy]

Good Lord give me Roosevelt, Lincoln, or Kennedy anyday - now THEY were war leaders.

Are there any other Presidents that you consider "great" that did not die in office? Is that mandatory to be exalted as a good leader?

 

[GarzaUK]

Are there any other Presidents that you consider "great" that did not die in office? Is that mandatory to be exalted as a good leader?

Coincidence I guess. Washington was a good General. Bush had low approval ratings before 9/11. When 9/11 happened he was considered a great leader. But what did he do that no other President would have done? Compared to the great speeches in history, his speeches are uninspired and repetitive. What slogan will Bush be thought of in later years? "Bring em on."?

He had the whole of America behind him on 9/11, but managed to split his nation during wartime, that is quite a feat in wartime America. Only the Vietnam era Presidents can match it.

The funny thing is that the Kosovo War and the Iraq War was apparantly fought for the same reasons - freedom of a people. Yet Republicans didn't support the Kosovo War, yet they support the Iraq war.

 

[Squawker]

When 9/11 happened he was considered a great leader. But what did he do that no other President would have done? Compared to the great speeches in history, his speeches are uninspired and repetitive. What slogan will Bush be thought of in later years? "Bring em on."?

President Bush has had some great speeches, it's just that the left doesn't want to give him any credit. History graded Reagan as a great President and the left hated him, so I am not sure popularity is any indicator of greatness. President Bush has and will accomplish great things during his term. The world loves a smooth talker like Clinton. He told everyone what they wanted to hear just to play nice in the sandbox, but he won't go down in history as a great President who accomplished something in the world.

 

[anomaly]

President Bush has had some great speeches, it's just that the left doesn't want to give him any credit. History graded Reagan as a great President and the left hated him, so I am not sure popularity is any indicator of greatness. President Bush has and will accomplish great things during his term. The world loves a smooth talker like Clinton. He told everyone what they wanted to hear just to play nice in the sandbox, but he won't go down in history as a great President who accomplished something in the world.

And Bush has accomplished something? Well, I wasn't aware he accomplished anything 'great'! He has, as the old saying goes, made the rich richer, and has started an illegal war. You know, he really deserved another 4 years, doesn't he? Roosevelt was a great President, the greatest we've ever had (arguable, Lincoln was great, too). He was great domestically and in foreign policy, two areas where Bush has failed.

And to Garza, personally, I think Blair and the rest of 'New Labour' are almost as bad as Thatcher. He's done for the Labour Party what Clinton did for the Democratic: given in to conservative economics, the free market, and globalization.

 

[Squawker]

And Bush has accomplished something? Well, I wasn't aware he accomplished anything 'great'!

What is establishing a democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq? Chopped liver?