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.

 

NWO creates new nation: USAN (seriously suprised no one mentioned this.)

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


The United States is a Union as well.

Why are you so worried about it? Oh that's right, because you're one of those myriads of yanks who are xenophobic.

I'm starting to go postal on you all...you're a cancer on this planet, overconsuming greedmongers.

Deny Ignorance, get out and patch up your wrongs, dig us out of your hole and fill it in.

One day I am going to blow up the U.S. Be worried about me, for I am your enemy.




posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Makoto
 


well if it was then I'd be happy for them, but it's not right to have large all powerful unions. They essentially limit democracy to only national leaders, rather then one big congress.

By that I mean, they only have representatives from big areas (nations) rather then little areas (states)



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
They don't limit democracy at all--each nation governs itself and has a voice in the union, just like every state does in the US.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Makoto
 


You don't see the error there? If a majority rules something that not all nations like, they're screwed. Only leaving the union is a solution. Also, if 49% didn't get their elector won, then they are suppressed by a greater factor as you go up the big gov ladder.

Say Chavez gets his turn around. Well, say he manages to get people on his side (buying votes, whatever, corruption goes hand in hand with big government) Then he gets to make socialist reforms and claim expanded powers. What do the non-socialist have to do? Then you've got a continental Civil War. (the likes of which are likely in a NAU scenario)

On a small scale like the US, if the president exercises too much control, states get a say in their congress. On a big gov level of continental unions, if a president goes too far and the union is in a state similar to the US (uncaring, essentially), then people get screwed over.


Therefor, big government is bad. It's not an issue of getting more powerful then the US, as most nations are in the modern age. It;s all about personal freedoms.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Makoto
They don't limit democracy at all--each nation governs itself and has a voice in the union, just like every state does in the US.


Mmmmm. That's working well for us, isn't it? I mean the feds keep on raiding compassionate facilities legal by state law... And we are told the Fed law trumps the state law, even though the Constitution and Bill of Rights stipulate that it is a state's (or the people's) option, not the Feds'. And if it is the people's...70%ish of us support medical use. Why do the Feds keep smacking us down...?

Yeah, initially it will be as you describe, but soon... Not so much.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Which means the system sucks--but we still make it work, and so will they. Maybe eventually we'll find something better, and the rest of the world will follow our lead again. Won't that be lovely?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Makoto
Which means the system sucks--but we still make it work, and so will they. Maybe eventually we'll find something better, and the rest of the world will follow our lead again. Won't that be lovely?


In case you hadn't noticed... The "system" is falling further and further away from the people having any power. It is centralizing and gearing up for Martial Law (did you read about the "practice runs" to establish Martial Law?). The "Patriot" Act yanked power from our congressional reps and handed it to the Fuhrer - er... the president, along with executive orders (that we aren't even allowed to see what they contain!).

It's in the process of becoming 1984.

You say "we still make it work," but I am saying that lizard-hearted individuals are pushing us into something that works for them and not for us.

And other Unions are encouraged by them so the process can begin worldwide.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Yep, perfectly said.

As you can see, Makoto, this is not something we WANT exported to the world And if history says anything, the governments of S America are, er, shall we say, unstable? Now by unifying this instability they create the possibility of revolution. Revolution for what is up to the beginners.

Forgive my hatred, but I don't want any government exported from elsewhere. I like my government the way it is... or was rather, and I don't what their evil centralized bull# in my nation.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
And the PATRIOT act is being gutted before Bush and his handlers are even out of power. Face it, your average politician at least wants to look like he has the people's best interests in mind--the only reason the act got passed in the first place was because of neocon sleight-of-hand.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Oceania...? George Orwell's 1984 gets closer and closer.



Oceania already exists. Our borders were opened some years ago to New Zealand for example. Anyone living there can come & go to Australia as they please and can even live here if they wish without an application. And vice-versa.

Funny thing about Oceania is, a church minister I know told me Oceania would consist of Australia, New Zealand and a few other countries in the region I dont recall, but what was striking was he said ISRAEL would be part of Oceania.

Now I dont know what 'links' currently exist to tie Oceania to Israel, BUT commonly these days if I go to download a file from any well known download site, and I get a number of links to select from, they commonly include Australia, New Zealand, & ISRAEL.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Nonchalant]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Honestly I could see that Israel could go with Austrailia, though when I sat down and independently drew out my New World Order map from what I saw as the best thing to do for the economic world (to strengthen currencies by combining nations/currencies and decreasing money supply in the new nations), I saw that I could draw 6 regions, with 3 question marks.

India--Hinduism puts it out of place with the Middle Eastern nations, and it may not chime well with the Buddhist-type religions of the Asian Union. (I also thought that the Phillippines may join the Middle East for religion reasons).

Russia--Way too big a country to accurately place, but would probably end up with the EU or on its own.

And lastly:

Israel-- Rising tensions with the Middle East, rising Anti-Semitism in Europe (at least that was what I'd read as of last year), and not to mention that they seem to be drifting away from identifying with the US (that's my opinion as a gut thing really). The reason why I'd think that Israel could be a big deal to Austrailia/New Zealand? The Suez Canal can be taken from Egypt (either by treaty or force), and Israel also has a need for electricity, which requires uranium, of which Austrailia has about 1/4 of the world's supply (World Nuclear Association Link). Its a weak connection at best, which is why when I did my mind experiment I left Israel as a wildcard, but now I could see at least very good economic reasons for Israel to be part of the Austrailia/New Zealand union.

Even if the world were to subdivide into these regional powers, they would still need to trade, which is mainly done over seas anymore, itt would be far cheaper for the Austrailian/New Zeland economy to go through the canal to port in Israel for re-distribution throughout the region on smaller ships than to go around continents and use up more ever precious fuel.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
meh, Russia seems a little friendly with China and Iran these days.

India, hmm, yep, I've never had a good place to put it.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Since America is unable to be A sovereign Nation I can not but scratch my head.
The Crown has 54 nations under its belt
The united States is a Corporation. does not even merit nation status

The terms America,Americans can apply to many peoples




[edit on 2-8-2008 by solo1]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
With all these unions, I can't help thinking that eventually it might become east and west. The two great land masses, gog and magog. Revelation to John.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bronco73
With all these unions, I can't help thinking that eventually it might become east and west. The two great land masses, gog and magog. Revelation to John.


hmm, interesting.

From where in the bible is this?

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
The Union only exists on paper...and It does look like a pipe dream.

Each region is very different and the economic structure in several of the nations is weak. This could help but this is only in infant stages. THERE is NO NAU, NO African Union, NO Asian Union, Yet so let us not jump to conclusions.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by antmax21
 



Actually there are. They have been signed and confirmed.

Well Not NAU yet, but all others, yes.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
We have already formed a Union... ever heard of "The UNITED States of America?

A bunch of sovereign states uniting under one flag? Oh wow, that concept is soooo new... oh, nevermind, we were actually way ahead of the curve on that one.

You should turn off the television sometime, maybe pick up a book.

Just a thought.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
The South American Union is having problems already.
www.worldnetdaily.com...

The European Union is not necessarily well liked by the people. That is why when something new (the Lisbon Treaty) came up the polititians all voted YES, but the Irish people voted NO. Ireland is the only country where the people had a direct vote.

news.yahoo.com...

The USA has already sign cooperative agreements with the EU


“In a sweeping move that has garnered surprisingly little attention this week the United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership that will see regulatory standards “harmonized” and will lay the basis for a merging of the US and EU into one single market, a huge step on the path to a new globalized world order.

The BBC reported (news.bbc.co.uk...) from the Summit in Washington on Monday:

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



The two sides agreed to set up an “economic council” to push ahead with regulatory convergence in nearly 40 areas, including intellectual property, financial services, business takeovers and the motor industry.”

stopspp.com...

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Why is uniting our continent a bad idea? Is there not strength in numbers? I think so many Americans resist this idea from fear. I think they fear Canada and Mexico joining us, and we all know the Mexicans are hard workers who are the ones working most of our agriculture jobs here in the states. If all of this doomsday stuff truly goes down, well they would already know how to grow food and survive on much less than us. So who benefits least from unification? Lazy Americans unwilling to adapt to global change.


Bad idea because I don't want to live under Canadian or Mexican law, and I'm sure there are those in those countries that don't want to live under US law, either. I kinda like the US Constitution as it is, other than the "increasingly ignored by the government" part.



I really dont understand why this is a bad idea, for our futures. Does unification automatically equal slaves, or death? Why could it not mean new and improved, or progressive opportunities for us?


"Progressive"? There's that word again... You can have my share of "progressive" opportunities, ok? I don't much care for what I've seen so far. Someone else can have my share of the "neocon" opportunities. I didn't like what I saw then, either.

How come no one likes "Constitutional" opportunities anymore?




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join