It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by iori_komei
What I'm saying is that technology has created a world that is more
connected, where ones country is not as important as it was even
two decades ago.
Originally posted by iori_komei
And things change over time, oppressors die, revolutions occur,
ideologies change.
The idea of individual nations will become less and less important
to people.
Originally posted by iori_komei
Things change over time, look at how Europe and the Western world
were 100-150 years ago.
Originally posted by iori_komei
Like I said, revolutions happen, people who hold the power die, ide-
ologies change.
Originally posted by iori_komei
You don't need to use force as much as you would before anymore
either, imagine how fast a country like the Congo would change if
you completely isolated them economically.
Originally posted by iori_komei
Yes there will be some places where force is required, and personally
I support using force to change countries that deny there peoples
freedom and the democratic process.
Originally posted by iori_komei
Another thing is places like PRChina, right now they are not a very free
or democratic country, but a century from now, they most likely will be,
and that is without force being applied, or massive revolutions occurring.
Originally posted by iori_komei
My last example, is look at things like the AU (African union), over time
as it develops it will influence it's constituent nations to conform to the
ideas of freedom and democracy (of which it promotes).
Originally posted by iori_komei
The majority of the world wants to promote freedom, not turn everyone
into slaves, so the unfree countries would become free, not the other
way around.
Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Dude when it come down to it, we are all the same.
We eat, we sleep, get up go to work, work, go home spend some time with the fam. And do it all over again
Originally posted by Johnmike
Not really. What do we eat? Where do we sleep? What work do we do? What's the family? How do we communicate with the family? Who is the head of the household? How are children treated?
What about something as broad and important as government philosophy? Tax? Religion? Rights?
Originally posted by iori_komei
The idea of individual nations will become less and less important to people.
Originally posted by Infoholic
Is every nation of people going to be brought up to the scale of the freest of the free? Or are the freest of the free going to be brought down to the deepest of "slavery"?
Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I kinda like our nation.
Why can't we keep it and just absorb everyone elses nation into ours?
Originally posted by Infoholic
Nations, thousands of miles apart can still remain a sovereign nation, all the while their people sharing views from their homeland without having to share the same political views. If that's not a true statement, mention that to my "pen pals" that I've had since grade school.
Yes, things change, oppressors die, revolutions occur, and ideologies change... But one thing that never changes is the fact that we can all remain sovereign.
Oh, great example. Do you honestly believe that Europe and America have become the "great buddies" they portray themselves to be? The two governments still have differentiating ideas on how to run their own countries. Who's going to decide that one way will work and the other won't?
And more people (even those that are oppressive) are born again.
Congo hasn't been isolated economically. Even if so, by being a poor country, that's enough justification to form a one world government? No way. Congo's got natural resources. Sell them like everyone else does. It's called "trade".
Originally posted by iori_komei
How can you advocate a peaceful union, and say that you'll take land to be part of your peaceful union by force? That's hypocritical.
Are you suggesting that those Communistic leaders of China are just going to one day roll over and say, "OK, live your life the way you want?"
China would be "forced" into a peaceful union, as one that you are depicting. But then that wouldn't make it quite so peaceful, now would it?
Originally posted by iori_komei
What the nations of Europe and Africa do, is what they want to do. If Europe and Africa wanted to blow themselves up with nuclear weapons just to save face... does that mean we should?
Originally posted by iori_komei
Do you have any means to provide backing to the idea of everyone being having the "same" freedoms?
Here in America, I have the Constitutional right to possess and bear arms... the Second Amendment... of which grants me (and any other law abiding American citizen) the ability to protect myself against a tyrannical government. How can you possibly fathom giving that right to everyone, worldwide, of which I'm sure there's some that will be happy to exercise that right to prevent any type of government?
But I thought you were advocating peace?
Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I kinda like our nation.
Why can't we keep it and just absorb everyone elses nation into ours?
Originally posted by iori_komei
Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I kinda like our nation.
Why can't we keep it and just absorb everyone elses nation into ours?
1. Because our system is flawed.
2. The system would not work very well on a global basis.
3. Because the rest of the world does not want to become a state of
the United States.
4. Because we are hardly free or democratic enough to be the world
government.
Originally posted by In nothing we trust
What kind of system would replace it then?
Originally posted by iori_komei
Considering that the level of communication that I am talking about
has only been around for a little over a decade, it really is very new,
and as such it's full effect has not yet been seen.
Originally posted by iori_komei
Yes, we can remain sovereign, I never said a nation could'nt or should
not be allowed to, that is unless its secession will lead to a less free
and less democratic state.
Originally posted by iori_komei
I was'nt meaning the relationship between America and Europe.
With Europe I meant look how much it has changed for the better,
to a point where the majority of the European countries just finished
celebrating the 50th anniversary of the European Union, and how
much more free and democratic alot of Europe has become since than.
Originally posted by iori_komei
With America I meant look how much we have become more unified,
and how we have freedoms now that we did'nt have than.
Originally posted by iori_komei
Yes, but at a rate significantly lower than in previous times.
Originally posted by iori_komei
I know, I was just using it as an example of a country that needs
reform that could be helped along that path through sanctions and such.
Originally posted by iori_komei
I did'nt say that, I said I don't have a problem with using force to change
a country that is not free and democratic, if they wanted to join, than
that's great, if they did'nt, than so be it, I don't believe in forcing them to.
Originally posted by iori_komei
First of all China is not Communist, it was founded on the Principles
of Leninism, Stallinism and Maoism, which are only communist in
that Leninism is an extreme form of Communism and Stallinism is a
perversion of Communism.
Originally posted by iori_komei
Again I do not believe in forcing any country into a union, and PRChina
is something that can go the right way by itself, though if things started
to degrade for a decade or more, action would need to be taken, be that
economic, force or a mixture of the two.
Originally posted by iori_komei
No, what I am getting at with that is that unfree and undemocratic
places can change, and that over time people can become more
united, and focus more on helping humanity as a whole rather than
squabble over countries.
Originally posted by iori_komei
My definition of freedom is doing whatever you like as long as you do
not directly infringe upon other peoples freedoms, unless that is they
are consenting.
Originally posted by iori_komei
I am well aware of our rights, and what the second amendment states.
You assume I am not American?
I am an advocate of the premise of the second amendment.
How can you possibly fathom giving that right to everyone, worldwide, of which I'm sure there's some that will be happy to exercise that right to prevent any type of government?
Force?
Originally posted by iori_komei
I believe in peace, but I am not a moron, I realize that there are cases
in which force is required.
Originally posted by iori_komei
Originally posted by In nothing we trust
What kind of system would replace it then?
Well I can't tell you what wil replace it, but I have my own ideas on
what should, but even than they are not exactly the msot probable
either.
What I think is probable is a confederation of blocs, much like what the
EU is, accept instead of countries, with geopolitical blocks like the EU,
South American Community of Nations, the AU, and the equivalents
that will come about in North America, Oceania and Asia.
Originally posted by Johnmike
I don't know much about it. How is the EU so evil and totalitarian?
Originally posted by Infoholic
The rights/etc. in those countries are granted by the government.... which means the government can take them away at any given moment.
And no, that's not the same thing as declaring martial law.
Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Originally posted by Infoholic
The rights/etc. in those countries are granted by the government.... which means the government can take them away at any given moment.
And no, that's not the same thing as declaring martial law.
Umm… are not the rights of every citizen in every country granted by there government?
Were not the rights granted the US constitution voted and granted by the government?
Can they not be taken away in the US visa-vie the patriot act?
I see no difference in this respect.
The major difference is the government type. The US is a Constitutional republic. Most E-U governments are parliamentary or constitutional monarchies.
Originally posted by Infoholic
Total control. A totalitarian dictatorship... a wolf in sheeps clothing, if you will.
Is this the form of "democracy" that you wish to sell?
Originally posted by Infoholic
Again, technology is no reason to rid the globe of national sovereignty.
Who is going to determine the level of being free or being democratic? Did you ever take into consideration that not all states (unions/nations) want to be democratic?
Ahh... so you are clapping your hands for a police state... where no one is really free... but free on a false pretense. Nice.
Superb. Look at all the rights, privileges, and freedoms we've lost over only the past 6 years. And you call that progress?
Originally posted by iori_komei
Do you have any credible evidence to prove that the rate of "evil" or "corrupt" has dropped significantly... in... oh, let's say the past 2000 years?
Originally posted by iori_komei
That's a discussion for the people of the Congo to take up with their own Government. That's not a problem that I should have to give up my sovereignty to solve.
You don't get it do you? You can't change someone by force and expect them to accept it as a "peaceful" notion.
China is not a Communist Country?
Originally posted by iori_komei
Then quit saying you'll force your beliefs, or it's OK for anyone else to force their beliefs on someone else. Simple.
They can change ONLY if they wish to do so. You can force anyone. You can't convince anyone to be someone or something they don't wish to be.
Then answer my question.
How can you possibly fathom giving that right to everyone, worldwide, of which I'm sure there's some that will be happy to exercise that right to prevent any type of government?
Force?
Under any case... FORCE DOES NOT EQUATE TO PEACE
Originally posted by Johnmike
No. The difference is that in the United States, the rights of the people do not derive from the government or sovereign (king). The rights are natural rights of the PEOPLE, granted by God. The Constitutions just outlines what these rights are, but in effect, the document itself has no power. They aren't "Constitutional Rights," they're God-given rights that happen to be written in the Constitution.