It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Citizens of nation states must be world citizens in era of globalization says Koffi Annan

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 08:38 PM
Globalization the oxymoron:

Some people have and some do not,
those that do not want more,
but they don't know how to get it because if they did they would.

But if they get everything they want,
the people that have will want more,
in order to stay on top,
but the world can only stand so much selfish fleas on its back,
thus the needy become the greedy,
a quandry indeed!

Everyone is afraid of the majority and wishes to bring it down,
but if they do,
many miscreant groups have to agree with one and other,
which they rarely do,
plus one group has to rule or nothing gets done,
thus the oppressed become the oppressors,
a quandry indeed!

posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 08:44 PM
I understood most of what you said to be an argument for either US domination of the world, or isolationism, astro, but I was not completely sure of which.

Many Iraqis today would feel as much towards US occupying forces as you indicate that you feel towards wannabe Saddams in the US. That is a quandary for you.

The only thing I really struggled with was this:

Originally posted by astrocreep
In other words, to have the US as the rest of the world is truly that.

What do you mean?

posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 08:46 PM
I picked up on it fine enough, Masked. And thus, my point: diversity must be preserved.

I have no desire to market one ideology upon people. I have no desire to intrude on the barbaric practices of people around the world. If they wish to live in that sort of culture, thats thier right to do so. I have no intentions on curtailing it, simply containing it to that section of the world where they can enjoy a society that condones such practices.

What youre suggesting is that simply stromnger cultures basically run amok over weaker ones, and of anyone doesnt like it, tough #.

You almost argue for e PNAC. By your logic, PNAC is the stronger culture, the stronger ideal, and thus...should be the one to survive and conquer. Thus, the removal of borders! One world under the PNAC! Whats wrong with that? Whats so bad about it if its the dominant culture?

A big problem. Throwing all your eggs into one basket. Bad survival and evolutionary tactics. Nature is not a high rolling vegas gambler.

There are people within the stronger cultures who would desire to live under the weaker ones. Not all the dominant denizens of the super nation adore living in an over technical over educated society.

The need for a variety to minister to the variety that is human kind.

posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 08:46 PM
Authority is an illusion in the mind of govenors - Lao Tse

There is no enemy anywhere

posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 09:01 PM

PNAC as a strategy relies on corruption, cronyism, deceiving the public and having the whole world "with us" rather than "against us" so it is doomed to failure.

Again, to put the words of corrupt neo-cons in my mouth is an indication of not having read 200+ posts of mine on the evils of the PNAC machinery.

You are right again though, about not enough diversity. Yesterday you argued that there were too many cultures, and today you say that we do not recognise enough diversity. This is good. Try to recognise diversity all the way through to the individual expression, and encompass all of that, and you have a cornerstone of the importance of universal principles.

But wait! What if someone wants to strap explosives to themselves, and go to your local mall, and set themselves off, as a useless gesture? Isn't that individual expression?

Well, that is where principle based laws must come into play. Prevention of harm to others is where the human species has not yet evolved to. You are correct that the species hasn't fully evolved, and it may not.

I would take it further. You want to leave barbaric practices and suicide bombers to pockets of the world where they exist, and contain them there. In my opinion the human species cannot allow it and cancers like these must be treated.

You don't want the importation of terrorists, which your government has trained you to fear, or potentially stronger foreign cultures.

Likewise, much of the rest of the world (on both state and populace levels) wants nothing to do with the importation of the US's military aggression, its weapons, or the garbage of its mass merchandising culture.

It is really a two way street, with a head on collision in sight because of the actions of this particular administration incumbent for the time being.

posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 09:23 PM

Re read prior posts. I hardly argued AGAINST too many cultures. please re read.

I siad there is simply too much diversity to ever impose one single ideology upon an enitre spieces of people.

Cancer is natural progression. I have no desire to "treat" these cancers of suicide bombers. let them stay. What is a cancer to you is a hero to another.

He is free to express his explosive desires, but we should be left free to prevent him from expressing them here.

Really maksed, you should listen to yourself sometimes. trained by my govornment to fear them? Do you pay any attention?

I strongly suggest re reading my posts, youre obviously not only failing to understand the full context, but making assumptions where non exist. This is not a good way to debate.

I have been trained to fear no one. I have little real fear of death left.

fear isnt the only factor for borders,MA. Theres more to it than just keeping undesirables out. While a suicide bomber in the mall is not something I personally fear...I am but one person. Mrs Jones and her 5 year old would be more concerned.

I dont know how you figured that before Bush, no one feared terrorism, no one was afraid, all borders were open and great. Thats how you come off as.

The threat of terrorism was something we were concerned about LONG before Bush JR reared his simian head. Terrorism exists. You live in a dream world if you dont think religous extremists, from either the middle east or from christian rural America, arent capable or willing to commit brutal acts of violence against others.

My concerns are based on EXPERIENCE. The sooner you udnerstand this, the sooner you might understand me.

Terrorism was a very real threat that the Bush admin found to be a wonderful tool for its own agenda.

Masked, PNAC isnt unique in that it uses coruuption, lies, ect to exist.

Any and every govornment uses such tactics, as does just about every agenda. Otherwise, if people knew the real truth......

Again I say, PNAC is no different from any other great agenda of empire in history that haS EXISTED. It can work quite fine. And its the dominant one. Dominant cultures overrun the weaker ones. Eggs in one basket.

And all empires fade.

posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 09:36 PM

Dutifully reread, from your post on page 2 of this thread (depending on how William is playing with the pagination at the moment, but I think he is in the playpen of what Today's Posts or Recent Active Threads looks like, it changes every five minutes):

"Too many people out there, too many different cultures and systems." - Skadi The Evil Elf, 2003.

Granted, you said there were too many cultures and peoples for the US to go out and invade and dominate. But the basis of your statement was not that diversity is good.

If I come across as someone that thought terrorism didn't exist before Bush, then you come across as a Bush apologist.

TIA, Patriot Act, Victory Act and all other market-friendly branded right-stripping legislation did not exist before Bush/PNAC.

Terrorism has been thrown to the forefront of this admin's priorities - or at least the basis of the lies it uses to further its corrupt agenda. It has worked on you, or you would not be concerned today about the safety of your shopping malls from terrorists, which are no more or less safe than before with the proliferation of weapons around the madhouse you call home.

My concern is more about how terrorism has been used to further the agenda you are caught up in, than the history of terrorism.

Stop apologizing for George W Bush and his criminal cronies.

Are we caught up in a debate? I didn't realize! What's the moot?

posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 09:37 PM

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
The only thing I really struggled with was this:

Originally posted by astrocreep
In other words, to have the US as the rest of the world is truly that.

What do you mean?

I mean that without our liberty and the incentive to further from our toils, there would be no innovation for the sake of our leaders and no cutting edge. Under the NWO, the US will be as hollow s the very soul of its leaders. It would be a devoid as Iraq under Saddam. We would eek out life day to day instead of having the intellectual part of us hungry, we'd have the physical part of us hungry. To work harder for a tyrant has no incentive to excel as proven by every dictator who has ever tried it. It fails.

Iraq was not attaked to further hinder the rights of its citizens but to had back to them a once thriving and beautiful country which has been used as a finacial engine for terror groups at the cost of their dignity and human rights. Some Iraqis still may not like it and some still may fight against it but these are the chosen few who have profited low these many years at the misery of the many and Saddam's chosen butchers. No post on a messager board could excuse his behavior toward his people and the "world community" so you needn't attempt it. To demonize the US in it's endeavor is to glorify one of the most inhuman monsters in modern times. I wonder, if we measured the amount of food that Iraqis have had since Saddam to the amount they had with Saddam what the ratio would be.

posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 09:45 PM

I follow.

I can do anti-Bush/PNAC stuff without glorifying Hussein!

1. Bush is a corrupt, unskilled puppet of the neo-con agenda which uses arguments of convenience about tyrannical dictators and terrorist threats to further its criminal war profiteering agenda.

2. Hussein was a cruel, tyrannical dictator once befriended by the USA and armed heavily by them, to take care of other nuisances in the region as a babysitter. He was a bad choice and a bad boy.

3. Hussein is gone, but the US is still occupying, and no-bid contracts are being awarded to US crony companies and Executive Orders are being signed that deprive the Iraqi people of the rights of ownership to their natural resources.

4. Bush is not gone, but needs to be gone.

Simple, but I didn't really get started on the wrongs of the incumbent administration at all. You will see them one day if you haven't felt them already.

posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 10:07 PM
MA, I will keep an opne mind to your position on Bush as I don't pledge him much faith either but I also must voice (while i still have the right) my opposition to the US relenting any soverieghty to a world government. Our constitution empowers our leaders and when they let outside powers make decisions for us then they betray the oath they take the day they stand to represent us. The democrat party has done it by putting the UN's schemes ahead of the interests of the people and so has Bush when he went before them to beg for the right to defend us and what makes it more appauling is that we had already come under attack and now we had to beg the world to defend ourselves.

I know a lot of crooked deals are going down but none were more so than the funds being laundered by the UN (and a few other countries against us ) through the oil for food program. ..none of which bought any food BTW.

posted on Sep, 22 2003 @ 01:04 AM

what if globalism cannot be stopped?
then is it not better that the US take control?

posted on Sep, 22 2003 @ 11:28 PM
MNasked, then you are not grasping the tone of my post.

Too much diversity. Too many cultures. Not a bad thing, it is a simple statement.

Too much out there for any one idealology or system to run. That is the gist of my point. Not your ideals, Bush, PNAC, ect can hope to rule all that. It can never and should never be. It is perhaps because of this widescale massive diversity, this huge kaliedescope of human ideals and cultures that might just save us yet from an NWO. Maybe, if they dont get wiped out first.

If I sound like a Bush apologist, then youre still not grasping the tone and the point of my posting.

Terrorism is the major issue of the day with the current admin, and most republicans. It is simply one example of a myriad of problems.

I hardly consider it the first and foremost. There are more important things I feel need to be addressed. Isolationism is my first goal and priority. Fixing the problems within. issue that directly affect me. Terrorism is simply an object of discussion and importance because the Bush admin has committed a terrorist attack against us. Future admins might do the same. Im almost certain they will.

You dont understand, MA. Its not just the current admin that needs to go.

THE WHOLE #ING ANIMAL THAT IS THE AMERICAN POLITICAL MACHINE MUST GO. Elections? So the cattle can elect another herder to herd them off the cliff? # no! We may as well keep Bush in office! Were getting the same pack of traitors, liars, thieves, and masters of deception!

This govornment system we posses isnt even constitutional anymore! the constitution was dead long before dubya ever sat in the oval office throne! the next president will kill it from the angles Bush missed.

the only thing that will save America completely is a total overhaul and rebuild of the machine. a MASSIVE one.

Otherwise, we may as well ressurect Hitler and elect him.

Anyway, terrorism, that is, real terrorism and not US orchastrated terrorism has been a constant shadow on the horizon, and could get progressively worse if we continue as we have in the middle east, as well as around the world. Its not the TOP issue, but one that must be serious looked at after we take care of the real problem facing the security and well being of America:

The long standing death of its founding principals.

posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
If I sound like a Bush apologist, then youre still not grasping the tone and the point of my posting.

You dont understand, MA. Its not just the current admin that needs to go.

THE WHOLE #ING ANIMAL THAT IS THE AMERICAN POLITICAL MACHINE MUST GO. Elections? So the cattle can elect another herder to herd them off the cliff? # no! We may as well keep Bush in office!


It is an interesting argument, and yet you still apologize for Bush.

An elephant can only be eaten one chunk at a time.

Remove the Bush administration, prevent the same thing happening again that happened that first time (the Supreme Court precedent), then go about electoral reform. The way elections and campaigns are conducted is in no way as sacrosanct as some people consider it to be.

If you would rather see Bush in office because he has some core value at heart in his PNAC agenda that you feel is important, that combats some global threat better than the next unknown incumbent, then you are indeed a Bush apologist. I have read all that you have said, and come to that conclusion.

You can, after all, take only one step at a time.

posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 06:11 PM

What is the point of beating an elephant when the elephant will simply crush you? You want to kill the elephant, you need to shoot it. Period.

Replacing Bush with another.....of THOSE people will not solve anything. I am not interested in delaying the inevitable, Im interesting in solving the inevitable.

Once a fish is rotten, it has to be thrown away. An Apple fileld to the core with worms cannot be eaten. A virgin, once devirginized, can never be a virgin again.

This system, the death of our originial principles, cannot come back. Reforms of the system are pointless. You cannot fix something this corrputed with its onw corrupt flesh.

The system must be razed, purifed comepletely, destroyed, and a new bignning must happen. otherwise, youre simply staving the elephant, a slow death.

I am not sure what your definition of apaoligizing for Bush is. How can I apologize for someone else, let alone a leader? I do not condone his action, nor do I think he simply a pawn, he is evil. So? Like hes the only one?

You fucus entirely too much on this administration, instead of looking at the bigger picture, the currents of forces that lay beneath. Bush is but a link in a chain. He is the most outwardly sinister link, but just that: a link. He is a willing participant in a corruption that has rotted our society for over 100 years. Leaders like him, however, feed off something else. The are not alone, they are kept alive by powers as scary as they.

Will the next president abolish the IRS? The federal reserve? The CIA? The FBI, ATF, social security, and the many unconstitutional buerocracies and powers that help support and feed leaders liek Bush? No. They will keep these institution in, because these institutions feed them, assist them, and are part of thier agenda: greater control and de humanization of thier cattle people. As long as these agencies exist, as long as the current laws, regulations, policies exist, then it really doesnt matter who you vote for.

Reform will be blocked. or it will be watered down to the point it does nothing.

Show me any real reform that has remotely made a difference in the past 100 years? A good reform?

Revolution is the only solution, period. Mass scale total bringing dopwn of the entire system and rebuilding it again from the bare foundation. Anything else is pointless.

It can happen. Even the most powerful govornments and systems in history fell when they no longer could feed and keep thier cattle happy. Economic collapse would ignite this. Im not talking about depression. Im talking about a total and irreversable economic doom and collapse. It would be the biggest blessing in disguise we have ever had, and perhaps, the only thing that would save us.

I dont want America to be a world player, I dont want her to be policeman, world bank, a member of the global village. I want her free again, in control of her own destiny. Otherwise, it would be better if we were utterly destroyed.

Death or slavery. The only two options left.

Bush is evil. Bush is going to getmm us on the freeway of an agenda that is downright scary. But the constitution has been dead years before he took office. Every president has stabbed it at aleast once. The next president will leave Bush's changes untouched, or minimum reform to them. And then he will continue to nail the coffin shut.

posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 07:24 PM

I was talking about eating an elephant (it is an old adage not beating one. You cruel (and masochistic) individual!

I am perhaps concluding at this stage that I am more optimistic that you are, that reform can happen, and that bads can be eliminated through change in government and then electoral reform.

If they can't, then the USA is stuffed for good. And I don't mean that as in 'good thing'.

posted on Sep, 26 2003 @ 05:30 PM
Of course, Masked, you are far more optimistic than I, as I have come to the coinclusion that AAmerica is too far gone down a path of self destruction to be fixed via peaceful legal routes. Thus, my pessimism is based on my own life expereinces living in this country, and observing the course of events.

America is stuffed regardless of who we elect, for even if we recieve temporary repreieve from our evil masters of today, our next masters, who knows? And the system that fosteres them still exists, the same people run the show regardless. If we are every to regain control over our own destiniy, affairs, and self rule, we need to get rid of an entire, diseased system that goes beyond the electoral college.

It also depends what our goals in the long term for the US are. Mine is simply to cease being the world power, slow removal from the global village, and greater self suffienciency and concentration on our own affairs, and let the rest of the world do as it wishes so long as they dont come bother us.

I have always been a big believer what goes on in my home is my biz, anyone else stay out of they dont like it. I extend this sentiment to other countries as well, including my own, and thats what pains me most about US involvement in other countries internal affairs: it violates a very basic belief of mine, to live and let live. I hold it dear, and when my govornment is, for its own nefarious purposes, invading another country telling them how to run things, it sickens me, ebacuse ultimately, we cannot stay free and independant if we allow this.

If another country, whether they want a brutal religious regime, a democracy, communism, ect that is for the people of that country to decide, not America. Not a global govornment either. While I hate the saudis and thier sick culture, id hardly wish ti ikpose US law and rule on the rat #s, because ultimately, if they want to live in a country that practises such bull#, thats thier descision, and they want to change it, let them change of thier own volition. let no foreign power dictate what is right and wrong.

because ultimately, good and evil, right and wrong, or relative terms, and one persons evil is another persons divine right.

The inly time Id ever support attacking and agressing another country is if they directly or, indirectly with a heavy hand, attempted to invade, or impose its own ideals onto mine. Since no one in thier right mind would invade, and with isolation no one would have much opportunity to impose, I see the world as basically no real threat to the US if we totally redo our govornment and foreign policy.

posted on Sep, 26 2003 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Since no one in their right mind would invade, and with isolation no one would have much opportunity to impose, I see the world as basically no real threat to the US if we totally redo our government and foreign policy.

And there at last is an optimistic statement!

posted on Sep, 26 2003 @ 06:05 PM
Yes, masked, optimism, tho a different kind of optimism than yours. never the less, I still think we can achieve isolation and self determination though, through more violent means regarding this....system we live in. It would require some changes to immigration policies as well, as there will always be someone who will hate someone else for thier own choices. But, as long as we arent getting involved in other peoples affairs, and are careful on who we allow in, and make sure we keep our military sufficent in size and strength for guarding our borders to keep up the threat to anyone who would bug us. No one would of course, but the world changes, you never know.

But foreign involevement is killing us, and as long as we keep the current system alive, it will continue to do so.

Thats why I deep down hope that OPEC damages us economically. Everyone would pay dearly, it would harm us horrible, but its a painful wake up call we desperately need.

because its better to be poor and free than a well fed and clothed slave.

But if our economy keeps sinking and we lose everything overnight, then things can start getting done. For the cattle, no longer having the green pastures to feed on , will stampede.

I am really hoping for economic collapse, the past few days I have watched the news to get a grasp on the current mentality, and all i see are talking heads telling people how to stay rich during a recession, how to benefit from the war, ect. As long as the economy remains stable and even if somewhat slower, people will continue to graze on lies.

When you lose everything, you find you have nothing left to lsoe, and everything to gain.

i shall keep my fingers crossed, and whish that friggin OPEC would quit divcing around with the Euro vote and give us the great economic backstab we so desperately need.

posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 03:19 PM

Originally posted by dragonrider
Are you happy to live in a soverign country where you know that at least your own laws apply to you, and that you have no fear of foreign interests changing those rules to suit the needs and interests of others from other countries?

I am sad to say, you are going to be loosing a lot of happiness....

12 September With the forces of globalization on the rise and the interdependence of the world's peoples growing, citizens of the nation states must also act as global citizens with a major role accruing to the United Nations in the effort to reach truly multilateral decisions, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said today.

"The challenge for us is to manage our interdependence in ways that bring people in rather than shutting them out," Mr. Annan told a ceremony marking the First Annual Interdependence Day held in Philadelphia, site of the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776.

whats wrong with that?

kofi is right! why not work as team. build higher and better a world for ourselves? Whats wrong with idealism?


posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 06:34 PM
Because its basically a sugar coated way to sell the NWO, spot, thats why.

National soverignty is an issue of great importance.

What you think is a beter and brighter world is pure hell to another.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in