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.

 

Chirac, one world gov't, and more

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

I like Chirac. Yeah, that's right you heard me...I think he's great. I know many think he's a "dirty cheese eating French weasel" and all that, but I really don't give a damn.


He and I seem to have similar ideas of how the world should be run. He wants to reform and strengthen the weak and ineffectual UN. If you really look carefully at his statements; if you look at his actions during his term...it's clear that he really wants a kind of one-world government. Ohhhh....I know, one-world government bad!!! Frankly, I don't think it is. I don't buy all the NWO stuff so I don't think there's anything sinister about it.

One-world government (of some kind) is the next step in social evolution. The logical progression in government is from smaller (city-states, feudal societies, etc.) to larger (kingdoms, empires, nations). I'm sure many of you are familiar with the work of Physicist Michio Kaku. According his theory of civilization types, for us the reach the next level of civilization, Type 1, one of the requirements is a one-world government. This is neccesary for us to fully and effectively utilize the resources of this planet. I don't think we'll get very far with a bunch of feuding nation states. More than likely we'll just destroy ourselves if things keep going like they are....

Dr. Kaku's website:
www.mkaku.org...

Going back to Chirac's ideas.....I believe that a confederacy of nations where every country keeps their sovereignty but has to answer to a "higher power" would be a good idea. Kind of a global EU I suppose. Each nation would be able to pursue its own interests but there would be a level of interconnection we don't have now. Eh...this idea is still fairly sketchy but I've got a general idea of how I'd like things to be.

P.S.- Before you respond to this message, remember that this is Political IDEOLOGY now, not the Mudpit....




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I'm completely against any world government, however I am curious how you think it would work.

What areas would this world government you envision have authority over, and how would this authority be enforced?

Would nations be able to succeed without repercussion? The US would not even be whole anymore without militarily forcing its members to stay.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
I'm completely against any world government, however I am curious how you think it would work.

What areas would this world government you envision have authority over, and how would this authority be enforced?

Would nations be able to succeed without repercussion? The US would not even be whole anymore without militarily forcing its members to stay.


Like I said, this is still a really rough idea but I can always guess (or bs)...

If by areas, you mean areas of the world, I suppose it would depend on who joins. A complete one-world government would most likely be impossible, because there would be some nations what wouldn't want to join and some that might not be allowed to join. I envisage a large bloc of nations with interconnected economies and societies. It wouldn't be neccesary to have the entire world under the coalition's control, though it would probably benefit most nations to join. No one is FORCED to join.

As to how the authority would be enforced....I'm not sure. I suppose it would be similar to how the US federal government enforces its laws. What happens when a state breaks the rules? The people in charge are censured or removed. There would be a set of agreed upon laws that everyone would have to follow, no matter what country it is. Like the US states, each country still have its own unique laws. The member nations would be too different (at least at first) to have exactly the same laws for everyone.

Regarding the military, there would be national defense forces and a multi-national army. Individuals from the member nations would join the mult-national miliary services, which would be independent from the control of any one country. This force wouldn't just be a collection of "donated" units from individual countries, it would be permanent standing military dedecated to the defense of all the nations equally. The nation armies would probably serve the same purpose as the national guard.

Secession wouldn't really be a viable option because the member nations would be so interconnected. It would be economically and socially disastrous to leave the union. I imagine the other states might have a problem with their economies being sent into chaos by a secession. There might be....scuffles. But then again, that's what the multi-national army is there for. To prevent wars between nations. Kind of creates a new meaning to the term "Peacekeeping force".


Edit: This may all seem far fetched, but wait until some tremendous worldwide disaster happens (massive plague, alien invasion, asteroid hit, etc.). You'll see a one-world government faster than you can blink!

[edit on 11/19/2004 by Flinx]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Typically when you look at many works of Sci-Fi.. Star Trek is one of them... eventually the world ends up joining as one.. I know that in Star Trek it got to the point where they were able to cure society's ills and a nuclear exchange destroyed most of civilization untill it was rebuilt.

But that is fantasy and we of course live in reality.

It is still questionable.. we live in such a diverse society where there are countless beliefs and "systems" if it is possible to join as one.

People talk of how human nature has always been savage and warlike. But if you look at the average person.. they are not like this. I believe it is the "system" which changes the nature of the person.. bringing out the savage and warlike ways of the human.

You often see violence and human's savage ways in places where there is severe economic problems.. hunger.. disease...poor living conditions.. all can result in an uprising.

I am counting on in the future (Unless we wiped ourselves out or natural causes) that some sort of world cooperation will exist.

It's just that the ills of society have to be fixed and we lack the capabilities to do so at this point. (We're only in the very very slight beginning)

Long ways to go.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Flinx, I totaly agree with you.

I think that EU should serve as a model to create similar unions in other parts of the world, like middle east, south east asia, south america, etc, etc. Countries would still keep their sovereignty, but also be a part of a union largely based on economy, trade, exchange of information, same currency, basicaly what the EU has.
When all those unions are formed, they could form some kind of council with representatives of all unions, to be the governing body of Earth.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip
Flinx, I totaly agree with you.

I think that EU should serve as a model to create similar unions in other parts of the world, like middle east, south east asia, south america, etc, etc. Countries would still keep their sovereignty, but also be a part of a union largely based on economy, trade, exchange of information, same currency, basicaly what the EU has.
When all those unions are formed, they could form some kind of council with representatives of all unions, to be the governing body of Earth.


Wow...I didn't really expect anyone to agree with me.


You've brought up a good point about creating smaller, regional unions first. There could be the EU, a South American union, a North American union, etc. In a sense there already is on some continents...just nothing formal. Just a stepping stone to true world government.

At the very least, we need to have a multi-polar would with several multi-national blocks. We don't need one or two countries out there dominating the world and not answering to anyone. The actions of one nation affects the entire world.

I know alot of people don't give a damn about the rest of the world and humanity as a whole, but the fact is, we're on this rock together. It's not like it was in the past where you could do whatever you wanted without affecting the entire world. Pollution and global warming are good examples of this concept.

[edit on 11/19/2004 by Flinx]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I agree with you completely i hope we can see a one world goverment in out lifetime it would make things a lot better.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   
So, you want the whole world to be one big Yugoslavia? In case you don't realize it, Chiraq would rather see Islamic terrorists in charge of Iraq instead of the U.S. and Iraqis. Besides, would we have the current model, where Kenya has as much authority as the U.S., even though the latter is by far the largest contributor, providing the UN with more resources than every other nation combined? And the next logical level in not a confederation. As long as there are people such as the terrorists, Communists, anti-Americans, and basically anybody who wants to dominate the planet, it'll never work. If the tribes in Africa won't unite, then why will the Pakistanis and Indians, or anyone else for that matter? There's ethnic and racial hatred, greed, expansionism, and other factors that will ensure the downfall of any confederation, assuming we even get that far. What kind of "higher power" are we talking about? Certainly not God, as most people in any single nation can't agree about that, and certainly not those who believe that God commands them to ram airplanes into buildings and behead people. Now look at the USSR: it brought unity to an area unrivaled since Genghis Khan - at gunpoint. As soon as it was gone, most ethnic groups broke off, and warfare resumed. It's the same situation in China, yet it's not yet at the point where the decay brought on by a central authority over unwilling conquered peoples becomes apparent. That is why Chirac's schemes of revived European colonialism and global domination will fail, and why there will be no one world government. For while there is a unifying factor in history, there is also a disunifying factor. Large empires have fragmented. The empire of the Khans is now many nations. Just look at your own example of Europe. There you have Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco, Vatican City, Luxembourg, and other small nations, most of which won't show up on a map. My immediate family owns almost as much land as Vatican City. This all came from a collection of the world's largest empires - France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Turkey, Austria, and more. There will never be one government over this world, unless all people except for one race are annihilated, and I don't see that happening - ever.

I probably got kind of wordy, so for those of you who are too lazy to read the above paragraph, here it is in short: one world governments will always fail, because not everybody agrees on the same ideology.

When I look back at it now, it is kind of a lengthy post.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

There would be a set of agreed upon laws that everyone would have to follow


So, the member nations would be France, Germany, Sweden, and Monaco? Because you'd have to get everybody to cooperate, not an easy task even in individual nations.


Peacekeeping force


I've always kind of wondered about that. If they're interested in peace, why would they use force? And unless they had the U.S. in it, it wouldn't be a big force. Nobody but the Chinese seems to be willing to make sacrifices for the good of their nation, not even America. Of course, China's motives are completely different.



This may all seem far fetched, but wait until some tremendous worldwide disaster happens (massive plague, alien invasion, asteroid hit, etc.). You'll see a one-world government faster than you can blink!


I'm sorry if I seem rude, but by the looks of it, you've been watching way too many science fiction movies lately. Besides, there have been disasters before and yet we haven't unified (albeit, nothing on the scale you're talking about).

The invention of nukes has not brought about a one world government.
WWII did nothing toward unifying the world, and probably worked against it.
The Cold War didn't bring about a one world government.
AIDS, SARS and other diseases haven't brought about a one world government, and neither have massive food shortages in Asia and Africa.

And the list goes on. Heck, 9/11 didn't unify America! If anything, it disunified it, because now we have socialists on the left accusing Republicans of bringing about the catastrophe! Now it's a daily blame game as even once-respected institutions resort to misleading statements, fabrications, forged documents, and outright lies. A massive catastrophe won't unify the world any more than the War on Terrorism has.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   

But if you look at the average person.. they are not like this. I believe it is the "system" which changes the nature of the person.. bringing out the savage and warlike ways of the human.


Which explains crime, greed, selfishness, jealousy... *insert sarcasm*



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
A one world Goverment with who sitting at the head?Chirac
France wants to be a world power again so bad and they realize they can never do it with their economic or military might. The only way is in Unions of other nations with France leading the way.

If this one World Goverment worked anything like the U.N what a mess it will be. People cant even agree on a single nation level and they think its going to work on a world wide level. Nothing would ever get done



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
who said chirac was incharge of the thing?
why is the force going to be small with out america?
one world gov would be good, mabye we could finally stop fighting each other and get into the habbit of diplomacy or worse dare i say cooperation gasp!!



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Democracy on a world wide scale with every nation having a equal say
Im telling you nothing would ever get done in a system like that. Every nation will try to look out for themselves like they do now.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Democracy on a world wide scale with every nation having a equal say
Im telling you nothing would ever get done in a system like that. Every nation will try to look out for themselves like they do now.




agreed.
Well, the only way that could work would be if a one world government had other one world governments to interact with. But we dont have any evidence for that, so a one world government would prove very lonely.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
What is so bad about giving more power to the UN ? A world governed by world opinion, i think it's the best political idea ever. Let all people decide on global issues like war, the environnement, poverty, etc... It shouldnt be allowed to some rich nations to take all the decisions while the poor watch, starve, and execute our slave labor.

Such a governement empowers weaker nations and weakens stronger nations. Everything that is needed is relinquishing national pride and utopias of US world domination to the closets of history. It requires only the will to do so.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I think the idea of one world corresponds to the old French motto of liberty, equality and fraternity. In a world where everyone was determined to act together to solve problems without duplicity, it could work. But we're far from that. Because of the fall of the Soviet bloc, Central/Eastern Europe and Northern Asia are undergoing a period of fragmentation - which is normal since countries in these regions never went through the "national" period countries in Western Europe and America went through. Same thing in the Middle East - there's a strong possibility that Kurdistan might detach from Iraq and Turkey, while Palestine still struggles to come into existence. These countries have had their national pride repressed for so many years that I can't blame them for being wary of international bodies.

That's one thing. The other problem is, bigger countries won't accept to be put on an equal footing with smaller nations. The United States, for example, have a very Nietzschean view of power - the strong are entitled to exercise their power over the weak, as a means of self-fulfillment. From what I've seen on this board, a number of Americans have the view that their country can scrap the UN entirely if it wants to, and that it should do so no matter what the other countries think. So in that context... we're going away from a world government, not towards it.

Does that mean that a world government could never exist? No, it doesn't. Democracy in the majority of Europe would've been unthinkable two centuries ago. Self-government for Africans would've been unthinkable one hundred years ago. Mentalities do change. But it'll take time.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join