What's so bad about NWO?

Originally posted by NegativeBeef
So what exactly is so bad about having an NWO? What's wrong with 1 world government? In some ways, having 1 world government would be a good thing think about it. Wouldn't that stop all wars and finally unite the earth? People say that having an NWO would mean that freedom would no longer exist but that is just untrue. How would freedom not exist? If anything, not only would it exist, but it would spread to the rest of the world as well.

whats so bad about having an NWO?

think about it. i repeat, think about it. i want you to think REAL HARD.


(i do think that such kind of posts on a forum that covers 9/11 conspiracies, phone tapping, and the emergence of a police state in USA really strange. almost funny.)


[edit on 3-6-2006 by DrExtravaganza]

An nwo or this nwo... Your mixing it up worse than the media mixes up the truth. I want you to think REAL HARD.

[edit on 6/3/06 by TristanBW9456]

you have officially been pwnt

[edit on 6/3/06 by TristanBW9456]

i fail to understand the purpose of your reply.

He's saying it's already here, which it quite frankly is.

whats so bad about nwo? the problem is that their would be no order!
have you heard the saying don't put all your eggs in one basket?
would we all become the u.n.?
one religion, one government, one bank, one world,?????

we are not the Borg!!!!!!

Originally posted by spector
whats so bad about nwo? the problem is that their would be no order!
have you heard the saying don't put all your eggs in one basket?
would we all become the u.n.?
one religion, one government, one bank, one world,?????

we are not the Borg!!!!!!

The problem with the UN is that its not powerful enough IMHO, members don't have to do what the UN says example - 'the US invation of Iraq' (the UN promotes diplomacy over war) the weapons inspectors were doing their jobs fine - but noooo the US government had to instill the people with fear and go in anyway.

I havent known the UN to attempt anything but noble aims.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by freeradical]

Ummmm is sterilizing millions noble? Heres my suggestion: keep your posts short and you will not be attacked in by others in a debate.

[edit on 6/3/06 by TristanBW9456]

Originally posted by TristanBW9456
Ummmm is sterilizing millions noble?

I did not know the UN was involved with that? Could you point me in a direction of a source, its worthy of further research.

Im not afraid of being 'attacked' for 'long' posts if you were giving me that suggestion, indeed i find it senseless that someone would attack a fellow member for having a long post

[edit on 3-6-2006 by freeradical]

Originally posted by freeradical

Originally posted by spector
whats so bad about nwo? the problem is that their would be no order!
have you heard the saying don't put all your eggs in one basket?
would we all become the u.n.?
one religion, one government, one bank, one world,?????

we are not the Borg!!!!!!

The problem with the UN is that its not powerful enough IMHO, members don't have to do what the UN says example - 'the US invation of Iraq' (the UN promotes diplomacy over war) the weapons inspectors were doing their jobs fine - but noooo the US government had to instill the people with fear and go in anyway.

I havent known the UN to attempt anything but noble aims.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by freeradical]

I understand what you are saying especially earlier when you mention the UN needs to be revised. IMHO the US is going to be the reason that he UN will be rivised.
At the moment the UN is meant to keep nations armies at bay and ensure global peace, althought the US has defied the UN in their bid to keep the peace, that is not all they have done. The US has used their capitalism and diplomacy to terrorize the entire globe for the last 50 yrs, and attempted to use diplomacy to take over the world. Does this mean that the when the US is finally brought to their knees and the UN gets revised, will the UN then have the right to not only oversee other nations military but to also over see their entire government and economy to make sure that such an atrocity will never occure again?

problem, reaction, solution. the US is trying to take over the world (problem), the world turns on the US (reaction), the world agrees to construct an overlapping government to over see problems before they begin and give every nation the same chance to prosper (solution)

The UN can sit it the "noble" high chair, because the US is doing all of the dirty work. The UN can sit their and act like "the ones to save us" without flinching, judging by the US's level of defiance.

If we take case Iraq for example, you could say that the US administration over reacted to Iraqs beach of the UN charter when it came to the proliferation of WMDs, for some reason they did not trust or believe that the weapons inspectors could be successful. Now to make such a bold move as invation you would expect that the people in charge had access to intelligence information proclaiming Iraqs deciet, apparently now they state this information wasnt accurate (?) I dont understand how the great intelligence agencies of the world could be fooled so easily.

Of course there were human rights abuses taking place in Iraq and this fact alone goes against the premis of the UN charter but the war was sold to us on the WMD and that Iraq was a theat to the peace, human rights seemed to take second place.

The UN isnt very good as pushing the agenda forward right now it seems, they should hold member states accountable to the UN Charter but the question is how?

[edit on 4-6-2006 by freeradical]