wlie 0 #51 August 22, 2002 QuoteWhat we really need is an alien invasion to unite us. Like in Independence Day? V?My other ride is the relative wind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dbattman 0 #52 August 22, 2002 How about this? "voluntary procreative racial deconstruction" Name that movie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #53 August 22, 2002 QuoteWe can encourage democracy if we want, and not trade with people who have mean n nasty governments, but we should not be a part of democracy's violent introduction. We've made that mistake a dozen times before, and it always blows up in our face. Bill, I think you're trolling. Japan and West Germany. People tend to project themselves on to others. You are a very smart, conversant person who other smart conversant people could always come to a win win situation with. You are talking about people who would stone Skybytch to death in the street for showing us a playful photo of her rack (just half her rack I might add) I don't think you get that there is no place at the table for cultures that practice slavery, forcibly mutilate their women, etc. This is the reason College campuses are so liberal. When you are surrounded by bright people who enjoy debating, you tend to start to believe everyone can talk their way out of any situation. If you could only get through to them. But you can't. Diplomacy is saying "nice doggy" while reaching behind you for a stick. (I forget, maybe Roosevelt?) I look forward to your hydrogen powered world. When the oil fields get nuked by Sadaam, we will probably have it up and running in about 10 years. But until then, I want Clay and most of these other young men and women to continue to be able to afford to skydive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Antithesis 0 #54 August 22, 2002 So long as we are seperated by oceans we will maintain our fear of eachother and never... never unite as a world! I would be willing to believe that someday one superpower could controll the entire world. But we would still be seperated by regions, colors, and cultures. No matter what greed and conflict will prevail it always has and always will. Nothing short of an alien invasion could unite the world (R.R.) And even if that happened, Every nation would put its bargaining chips on the table to try and end up with the upper hand. Europe is only uniting in the face of competition from the united states and china. The "interweaving" of the WTO and WMF are Non-military aquisitional arms of the countries that have. Their sole purpose is to maintain a cheap source of labor and collect ridiculous amounts of interest from National bailouts in underdeveloped countries. Ofcourse I have heard alot of talk about hybred jumps lately.. Heck who knows. If Belly fliers and Freefliers can get togather and have fun who says that the entire world with all of its differences can't get along. Peace I travel the land, Work in the ocean, Play in the sky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #55 August 22, 2002 QuoteThe "interweaving" of the WTO and WMF are Non-military aquisitional arms of the countries that have. Their sole purpose is to maintain a cheap source of labor and collect ridiculous amounts of interest from National bailouts in underdeveloped countries. Dude. Let me guess, you're a college student? This sounds like a direct quote from one of those lame propaganda flyers handed out on the quad during a protest rally. The WTO's main purpose is to promote international trade. The main purpose of the Bretton Woods agencies (IMF/WB) is to promote a stable international financial system. This actually costs the first world (mostly the U.S.) a very large amount of money. Everyone benefits from a stable financial system. Are you following the news in Brazil (IMF bailout, etc)? It looks to me like the Brazilians need help, and the Bretton Woods agencies are stepping up to the plate. Although this is partly motivated by self interest in the short term (stability and trade benefits us right now), it's mostly intended to maintain international stability (which translates directly to international peace) in the long term. The Bretton Woods agreement was not an attempt to subjugate anyone. It was an effort to encourage economic cooperation and interdependence, and thereby reduce the factors which had led the world into the second world war. I encourage you to read a good history of the postwar economic order. It sounds to me like you've been thoroughly snowed by some second rate propaganda.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #56 August 22, 2002 QuoteSo long as we are seperated by oceans we will maintain our fear of each other and never... never unite as a world! People used to make the same argument about pure distance. "Why them damn Yankees are a thousand miles away. We'll never be united with them!" Continuously advancing technology is rapidly making this argument obsolete. Twenty years ago who (aside from Billvon) would have thought a group of people from all over the world could be having this discussion? I expect that the "distance naturally leads to separation" argument will be seen as quaintly trite within my lifetime. We'll be looking back and saying "remember when we though Paris/Tokyo/New York/Riyadh was soooo far away?"-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #57 August 22, 2002 Quote- and it's foolish to expect someone else to come in and save us when we do that All we needed was the use of our own equipment. The guys in charge ask for this equipment long before these operations. It was denied because politicians AND THE UN saw this as an escalation. I certainly don't blame the Somalis. If I was a Somali I would have been right there shooting Americans too. Think if a UN Army set down here and started trying to collect everyones guns. I think you would see a battle or two.... OH BTW.....it was the UN that wanted Aideed captured....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meatmissile 0 #58 August 22, 2002 Bad idea. The most powerful countries would just end up controlling it to further their own interests, under the disguise of "it's for everyones good". -- ZZZzzzz.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil 0 #59 August 22, 2002 world government? I'm sorry, but imho this would be total BS. The power back in the hands of a few? Do you really think, that even if we would vote our representatives into power, that they would actually do what we are expecting them to do? Let there be light! THEY WON'T. Who ever has the strongest lobby will win and if you are on the wrong side of the court? Well good luck to you! As we live now, one country will not accept another country for whatever stupid reason. Be it because they have lower taxes or don't have the same view on politics or the wrong religion or no religion... wtf... Look at the chaos in countries, that never knew what democracy stands for. Now it stands for chaos and survival of the fittest. If that is the new world order - well thank goodness to I own more than one gun, because I would be the first one to call for a revolution (hasta siempre la revolution... or what ever Che used to say) . I still believe, that we are the ones that call the shots, we being the people that make a country. Our opinion is the one that matters and not the one of some huge conglomerate worldwide company that wants its interests protected by a so-called government. I have a first hand insight on what a pseuydo government is capable of doing here in Europe. To say it nicely - it stinks. What we as the people have to make sure is, that we never forget how to count...one vote for B... one vote for G... now let's go an catch some air, anybody up for some head-down action? Ready set go!!! ... .. .how high can you fly with broken wings ... life's a journey not a destination Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #60 August 22, 2002 QuoteBad idea. The most powerful countries would just end up controlling it to further their own interests, under the disguise of "it's for everyones good". If there is a World Government, there is no "most powerful countries" and there are no private "interests" to further. World economics would be ever so simple... just like the examples in your typical colledge economics class... "If 'country A' can make 50 units of product X and 2 of product Y... And 'country B' can make 60 units of pruduct Y and 5 units of product X... Then country A puts all their efforts into production of product X and country B, product Y! And most importantly, everyone gets enough of both product" I can imagine a lot of people saying "It's not that simple" but you know what? It is! If YOU were in controll of the entire planet, you would no longer see the East and the West... You'd see YOUR planet. There is no benefit to having more than your neighboor because the government makes sure everyone gets what they need! My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #61 August 22, 2002 Quotethe government makes sure everyone gets what they need! So....... it's a World Communist Government that you think would work best? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meatmissile 0 #62 August 22, 2002 That is the idealistic view. I wish it could be that simple - unfortunately it is not. There are many single corporations in America that are more powerful economically than entire countries over here in Africa. What makes you think that the interests of any country here could ever be placed on the level of the interests of one of those corporations? Let alone that the interests of any country here could compete with that of the US, for example. No, we each will have to work for our own place in the sun, and hope that superpowers like the US see the bigger picture - and look out for our fragile planet. It is actually a hot topic over here with the World Summit on sustainable development due to start in Johannesburg next week. But then again, which world summit influences the world the most? Therein lies the answer Actually, the answer is: Anything organised by the WTO would have an influence. -- ZZZzzzz.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meatmissile 0 #63 August 22, 2002 QuoteSo....... it's a World Communist Government that you think would work best? True, I didn't even see that one! -- ZZZzzzz.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #64 August 22, 2002 Quote So....... it's a World Communist Government that you think would work best? Uhhhhh, not exactly. You, as an individual, still get to pick the career you are going to work, it will pay what it pays, you may make more money and have a bigger house than your neighboor... You get to pick where you live, what you eat, and nobody will tell you that you cannot have something just because someone else doesn't have it. On a larger scale, an exception to this is made when one group has all of product X and another group is dying because they cannot afford to buy it from them. Importation and exportation of the products everyone needs from one location to another location is all I am refering to. And it would be based on logic. True, there are many companies in the states which are more powerfull than small countries in Africa but that would no longer matter. These are the people who would be upset with the change because they would no longer be able to inflate the value of what they are providing... I present again that under one power, the dollar value is what the power that be makes it! My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #65 August 22, 2002 QuoteAnd it would be based on logic. Not on this planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #66 August 22, 2002 >Importation and exportation of the products everyone needs from >one location to another location is all I am refering to. And it would > be based on logic. If that's the case, the US would immediately lose 90% of its 'stuff' - cars, food, housing materials. We are incredibly wealthy compared to most of the world, and any system that forced exportation of stuff in a sort of "robin hood" scheme would leave us pretty poor. That seems like a bad idea, to me. My vision of a world government has nothing to do with regulation of trade, or passing laws about what you can and can't sell. It is simply a government that ties a lot of nations together in a common framework. It has a court to settle inter-country disputes and deal with genocidal dictators. It has a legislature to pass laws against genocide, deal with global warming issues etc. It has a military arm to prevent invasions of member countries, and bring the worst of the criminals to justice. And that's about it. If a country stays within its borders, and does not violate some very basic human-rights laws, then it gets left alone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #67 August 22, 2002 But a world Government would have to look at the entire planet as one country. What are now considered 'countries' would be looked at as provinces.... er... States if you will. I'm not denying that some rich people would be made less rich and some poor people would be made less poor. Again, the world is getting to be a smaller place. There's no need for some of the distinctions we have between people... I heard somebody's theory one time about how, with all the inter-racial partners and procreation going on today, that we as humans are heading towards one single race! makes sense to me... soon, there will be only one 'culture'. Do we have to wait much longer to realize that we really are one single, LARGE family? Trade should be regulated at first because nobody will be first to say, "I will export this to you without profit because it's the sensible thing to do!"... It really isn't because as things are now, we need profit to survive... soon we will not. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #68 August 22, 2002 QuoteIf we could actually stick to what we claim to be our moral highground > in dealing with other nations of the world, we possibly could remain > in a leadership position in a world government. I think the opposite. We should treat other countries like we want to be treated - i.e. we should, for the most part, leave them alone. And if we want to be part of a world government, we better prove that we can negotiate for peace without trying to turn other countries into copies of the US. That's pretty much what I meant. I don't mean we should impose our beliefs or rules on another country. But, we shouldn't be "friends" with governments that are so diametrically opposed to our own beliefs. We should leave them alone and not ally ourselves with them. I'm in your court regarding the type of WG you would like to see. Basically a stronger, more widespread UN type situation with better cooperation and less beauracracy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Antithesis 0 #69 August 22, 2002 First I am not a college student who was handed a flyer and rented an opinion from it. Far from it actually. What I believe has come about from my travels and experiences talking with people who live in countries that have recieved a significant amount of $$ from the IMF. You refer to that money as a bailout. Do you think that it's free? What do you think that a nation does with that money to stimulate their economy? From what I understand they loan it out with an even higher compounded interest rate. How can that work for a nation in the long run? How will being forced deeper and deeper into debt promote economic stability? I'm just looking at a few principals of business here -- Because that's what it really is isn't it? We're not helping them for free and to be friendly are we?. Peace I travel the land, Work in the ocean, Play in the sky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Antithesis 0 #70 August 22, 2002 Quote I expect that the "distance naturally leads to separation" argument will be seen as quaintly trite within my lifetime. We'll be looking back and saying "remember when we though Paris/Tokyo/New York/Riyadh was soooo far away?" I sure hope that you're right! I also dream of a world that will one day live in harmony and have spent my life trying to understand why it doesn't. There's nothing that I enjoy more than travel and trying to understand new cultures. I do believe in some of the great qualities of humanity. But I do not think that any of them will bring about a unified world gov. At least one that politics can sort out. There is very little real trust in this world (in general). If that changed I would think differently and look forward to a unified world gov. Peace I travel the land, Work in the ocean, Play in the sky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meatmissile 0 #71 August 22, 2002 QuoteI heard somebody's theory one time about how, with all the inter-racial partners and procreation going on today, that we as humans are heading towards one single race! makes sense to me... soon, there will be only one 'culture'. Do we have to wait much longer to realize that we really are one single, LARGE family? No, no, 1000 times no. I like Americans, but please oh please do not let us become one LARGE family. I like cultural diversity. In fact, I met my wife in a country that could hardly be further from my home if it tried. And I live in South Africa, the most multicultural place on earth! (which is not, contrary to popular belief, the capital state in the United States of Africa - as most people in the US seemed to think when I was there last year) So I know what I'm talking about. I have quite a few American friends - but please, no unicultural world for me! -- ZZZzzzz.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #72 August 22, 2002 QuoteFirst I am not a college student who was handed a flyer and rented an opinion from it. Sorry. I didn't mean to offend with that comment. I think that spending 10 years on a university campus just made me oversensitive to that kind of thing. Apologies. QuoteWhat I believe has come about from my travels and experiences talking with people who live in countries that have recieved a significant amount of $$ from the IMF. As a somewhat humorous aside... I think the IMF is worth the amount of tax dollars spent on it just for the fact that it employs Outrager, one of my favorite people on the planet, and probably the world's top BASE wingsuit pilot. QuoteYou refer to that money as a bailout. Do you think that it's free? What do you think that a nation does with that money to stimulate their economy? From what I understand they loan it out with an even higher compounded interest rate. How can that work for a nation in the long run? How will being forced deeper and deeper into debt promote economic stability? Fact: The majority of IMF loans have already come due. Fact: The majority of IMF loans have not been repayed. Fact: The majority of IMF loans have been either forgiven or re-scheduled. Fact: The large economies (primarily the U.S. and E.U.) continue to pour money into the IMF, and do not receive any kind of comensurate return. Opinion: The IMF looks to be far more interested in effecting positive structural change in the developing world, and stabilizing the world economy, than in collecting interest. I think that the "interest" is just the IMF's way of trying to use aid money as a lever to push reluctant governments into doing what is good for their citizens, and the rest of the world, in the long run. QuoteI'm just looking at a few principals of business here -- Because that's what it really is isn't it? We're not helping them for free and to be friendly are we? Nope. I think we're helping them because it is in our own interest in the long run to encourage peace, a stable international financial system, continued trade growth and interdependence, and a higher standard of living for all mankind. To paraphrase Keynes: Hungry people start wars. If we want to stop war, our best path is to improve the human condition everywhere. That is what the IMF is for. My opinion is that the IMF is basically an aid agency. It gives out money (with a rate of loss that would horrify any real banker or investor) to encourage growth and development. It is not some crazy conspiracy to economically subjugate the third world. We can rely on Coca-Cola and McDonalds to do that .-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #73 August 22, 2002 Quotewhich is not, contrary to popular belief, the capital state in the United States of Africa - as most people in the US seemed to think when I was there last year Isn't it amazing just how dumb some people are. We do have Billvon to make up for it though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meatmissile 0 #74 August 22, 2002 QuoteWe do have Billvon to make up for it though. Yes, maybe I just didn't speak to the right people. I just can't imagine a world without cutural diversity. It would be like a world without beer. -- ZZZzzzz.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #75 August 22, 2002 QuoteIt would be like a world without beer. "The horror......the horror...."- Marlon Brando/Apocolypse Now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
