ForumGarden

caesar777;485971 wrote:

Good for you, obviously one of the beneficiaries of America's riches. I wonder how many Phillipinos are so well travelled?


Perhaps it was Accs. job to go abroad?

Flippininos go abroad to work, too, mainly.

Globalization and the Possibility of a Global Government

Translated to

America and the possibility of a global american government :wah:

My company (british by origin) has just gone through globalisation, and I struggle every day to get the european perspective across!

Galbally makes a brilliant point about Arabs and governmental systems. George Bush's ridiculous, doomed-from-the-beginning idea of imposing "democracy" on Iraq is an excellent example. Does anyone really believe the Iraqis (or any fundamentalist Muslim country) would accept a sectarian form of government, where women were afforded equal rights and equal voices?

Lulu2;486133 wrote: George Bush's ridiculous, doomed-from-the-beginning idea of imposing "democracy" on Iraq is an excellent example. Does anyone really believe the Iraqis (or any fundamentalist Muslim country) would accept a sectarian form of government, where women were afforded equal rights and equal voices?


Fundamental muslim countries are only that because of the government in place there. Look at Iran prior to the Ayatolla. Women had positions as judges!

You seem to be biased against muslims, which is not surprising since you are an American.

Read it again! We were discussing the possibility of a global government (remember the thread title?) My example is quite simple--fundamentalist Islamic countries would never accept a government which affords women equal voices in society.

Kindly back off on your assumptions of my world views based on my nationality.

Lulu2;486493 wrote: Read it again! We were discussing the possibility of a global government (remember the thread title?) My example is quite simple--fundamentalist Islamic countries would never accept a government which affords women equal voices in society.

Kindly back off on your assumptions of my world views based on my nationality.


My apologies, I forgot which thread I was on.

The point I made is still valid, most muslims in fundamentalist muslim countries want a change of government.

Also, western countries would never accept a government which grants equal number of votes to equl number of people. At present the UN is ! nation ! vote despite India, China etc. having populations many times in excess of ours.

"The point I made is still valid, most muslims in fundamentalist muslim countries want a change of government."

++++++++++++++ Based on what data, please? Are you suggesting that the Afghans, Saudis and Iranians are actively chafing for womens' suffrage?

Lulu2;486493 wrote: Read it again! We were discussing the possibility of a global government (remember the thread title?) My example is quite simple--fundamentalist Islamic countries would never accept a government which affords women equal voices in society. You seem unaware that Iraq before the "liberation" was a secular republic in which women had, for the first time in that part of the world, a fully equal chance of education and employment with no glass ceiling. The revertion to fundamentalist values is entirely a consequence of the West's inteference in the country's internal affairs.

You seem unaware that there are many more fundamentalist Islamic countries besides Iraq.

You also seem unaware that the title of this thread is "Globalism and the possibility of a global government."

It's not "Let's bash US policies in Iraq"....or was there a sub-text I missed?

(One thing I DID miss is how you got off my "ignore" list.)

Lulu2;486525 wrote: You seem unaware that there are many more fundamentalist Islamic countries besides Iraq.

You also seem unaware that the title of this thread is "Globalism and the possibility of a global government."

It's not "Let's bash US policies in Iraq"....or was there a sub-text I missed?

(One thing I DID miss is how you got off my "ignore" list.)Lulu, I explicitly responded to your "George Bush's ridiculous, doomed-from-the-beginning idea of imposing "democracy" on Iraq is an excellent example. Does anyone really believe the Iraqis (or any fundamentalist Muslim country) would accept a sectarian form of government, where women were afforded equal rights and equal voices?" which was entirely about Iraq. With a parenthetical side-comment on "any fundamentalist Muslim country", which Iraq most definitely wasn't until it was pushed that way recently by outsiders.

caesar777;485971 wrote:



Good for you, obviously one of the beneficiaries of America's riches. I wonder how many Phillipinos are so well travelled?
Tens of thousands, I'm sure. Many of the GI's I was stationed with fell in love and married Filipinas.



I don't appreciate the snide remark, btw. Shows your prejudice, as well as ignorance of my history you're not interested in rectifying. I s'pose you're a pauper who can barely afford the computer you post with?

caesar777;484560 wrote: The examples you give of Russia, America, Nazi Germany and Napoleonic France are all cases of one country dominating others, which I have already said is WRONG!

I want to see all countries represented in a world parliament, with equal reprisentation for each person.

Your view of the British (or English as you mistakenly insist on calling it) empire as a benificent power, ruling for the benefit of all its subjects is ludicrous. I doubt that you would have thought this if you were a native of one of our dominions at the time.

As for the EU, europe is on course for unification and will be the dominant power in the world within 100 years, with the highest standard of living. As one of the largest nations in europe we have a choice; to shape the EU and its laws or to leave and diminish into a second rate, small and isolated country. I know which I would rather be, a citizen of europe, not a subject of that once powerful, 3rd world country called England (Scotland and Wales will no doubt take the sensible option and leave England to its fate).


And mightily pleased we will be when they do Scotland and Ireland have been grief as long as we have known them, Whilst it is called the British Empire it was the English who ran it. As far as Europe is concerned Churchill said given the choice of Europe or the sea we must take the sea every time, anything else is treason. The head wobbling a bit is it?

Accountable;486589 wrote:



I don't appreciate the snide remark, btw. Shows your prejudice, as well as ignorance of my history you're not interested in rectifying. I s'pose you're a pauper who can barely afford the computer you post with?


What snide remark?

I'm not well off by western standards but compared to the majority of the world I am very wealthy.

The point I am trying to get across is that the west is excessively rich whilst the rest of the world is excessively poor. Computers to us are a week or two's wages but for an Ethiopian for example, they are a dream which they could never afford to buy.

twizzel;486601 wrote: And mightily pleased we will be when they do Scotland and Ireland have been grief as long as we have known them, Whilst it is called the British Empire it was the English who ran it. As far as Europe is concerned Churchill said given the choice of Europe or the sea we must take the sea every time, anything else is treason. The head wobbling a bit is it?


Oi Twizzel, leave Ireland out of this, you do not wanna get into that with me, trust me. What Britain does for its future is your decision, I respect that, what the Republic of Ireland does, is our business, not yours, period.

As for the general points I think again to stress, saying that Islamic countries are for the most part either secular or theocractic despotisms is not being anto-muslim its simply stating a fact. I don't agree with the Iraq war, but Iraq was hardly a model state before 2003 was it, what about algeria? The French left in 1961, yet the Algerians have managed to fight a horrific civil war between each other since 1992, without much prompting from the west. Or Egypt. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia? By our standards all these countries have despotic autocratic systems, they provide very little actual political or intellectual freedom to dissidents in their own societies, its fatuous to suggest that this is all the west's fault, or even that its any of our business how they run their affairs, but I certainly wouldn't be a cheerleader for any of those states, because culturally I am western, and I don't share many of the cultural values of that part of the world and I make no apologies for it. It simply re-enforces the point that its neither possible or even desirable to create a "World Governemnt" as there are various very different civilizations on the world, and the best that can be achieved is for each of these cultures to co-exist in some form of civilized manner.

Galbally;487318 wrote: It simply re-enforces the point that its neither possible or even desirable to create a "World Governemnt" as there are various very different civilizations on the world, and the best that can be achieved is for each of these cultures to co-exist in some form of civilized manner.


But if there was a world government different cultures would still exist but there would be no dictatorships, no-one would be oppressed and living standards around the world would be brought closer together. That sounds desirable to me and we should try our best to make it possible. With enough effort, nothing is impossible.

caesar777;487458 wrote: But if there was a world government different cultures would still exist but there would be no dictatorships, no-one would be oppressed and living standards around the world would be brought closer together. That sounds desirable to me and we should try our best to make it possible. With enough effort, nothing is impossible.


How do you know that a "World Government" wouldn't be a dictatorship either? Our Liberal Democracies in the West are not the general model that others follow, so what makes you think that a world government would end up being a liberal democracy. Even if it was, how would you proposed to enforce such a system on states that reject that model, such as China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Cuba, Iran, Algeria, Syria, Pakistan etc etc etc, what makes you think that people in those countries would resist any attempt at forming a "World Government", or people in our own countries? If there was one world state, then China and India between them would have one third of its population, how would smaller countries like Holland or Ireland not be completely voiceless in such a massive political entity? If there was just one government for the world, where would people opposed to it have to go to get away from it? I don't think you are thinking it through, it may sound in theory like a sensible idea, but actually it isn't its a terrible idea as far as I am concerned, and I would not be in favor of a world governemnt at all.

Galbally;487510 wrote: How do you know that a "World Government" wouldn't be a dictatorship either? Our Liberal Democracies in the West are not the general model that others follow, so what makes you think that a world government would end up being a liberal democracy. Even if it was, how would you proposed to enforce such a system on states that reject that model, such as China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Cuba, Iran, Algeria, Syria, Pakistan etc etc etc, what makes you think that people in those countries would resist any attempt at forming a "World Government", or people in our own countries? If there was one world state, then China and India between them would have one third of its population, how would smaller countries like Holland or Ireland not be completely voiceless in such a massive political entity? If there was just one government for the world, where would people opposed to it have to go to get away from it? I don't think you are thinking it through, it may sound in theory like a sensible idea, but actually it isn't its a terrible idea as far as I am concerned, and I would not be in favor of a world governemnt at all.


A world govt. would be a democracy as, with so many inhabitants no-one could get away with imposing there rule.

States which reject the model would not join at first, but when they see the benefits of joining they would soon change their minds and opt in, as has happened with the EU.

As for China dominating, it's people would be represented fairly, one member per 10,000,000 citizens say, smaller countries would have fewer members but this is the nature of parliaments, London has many more MPs than Derby.

People opposed to it would have to elect members with similar views to themselves rather than trying to get away from it. I don't like my govt, but I vote for opposition parties rather than emigrating.

I just want us to work together rather than competing. Is that so bad?

caesar777;487528 wrote: A world govt. would be a democracy as, with so many inhabitants no-one could get away with imposing there rule.

States which reject the model would not join at first, but when they see the benefits of joining they would soon change their minds and opt in, as has happened with the EU.

As for China dominating, it's people would be represented fairly, one member per 10,000,000 citizens say, smaller countries would have fewer members but this is the nature of parliaments, London has many more MPs than Derby.

People opposed to it would have to elect members with similar views to themselves rather than trying to get away from it. I don't like my govt, but I vote for opposition parties rather than emigrating.

I just want us to work together rather than competing. Is that so bad?




Caesar, your ideas are totally unworkable, you are suggesting a government in which the votes of 10 million Chinese would be the same as (say) 100 British people, on what sort of basis or sovereignty could such arbitrary measures be taken? You are simply being far too idealistic about what governments and people are, and your plans would lead to catastrophe.

The EU works because Europe is one civilization, and although European nations are quite different in many respects, in their basic civilizational values and cultural ideals they are quite similar, and the EU is a difficult enough project or ideal to achieve as is, imagine trying to use the same model to force the Mongolians into the same political union as the Welsh, its patently absurd.

Even in a country as unified as America, there is much concern from many Americans about the power of their central, federal government, as opposed to the power of the indivdual states (and thats in a country with once language, one culture, and more or less one major religion (Christianity). Likewise many Europeans are uneasy about the idea of a federal Europe, (I wouldn't mind it if it was properly thought out, but I can certainly understand why people in all European countries would be wary of it, and I don't see even a federal Europe as a possiblility for a long time, let alone a federal United States of Earth). I think if you step back a bit and look at what the reality of what your proposing would actually be like or how (god knows) it would operate, you will realize that its a crazy idea. I'm not going to debate it really any more, because I've said as much as is worth saying about this topic.

Galbally;487569 wrote: Caesar, your ideas are totally unworkable, you are suggesting a government in which the votes of 10 million Chinese would be the same as (say) 100 British people, on what sort of basis or sovereignty could such arbitrary measures be taken? You are simply being far too idealistic about what governments and people are, and your plans would lead to catastrophe.

The EU works because Europe is one civilization, and although European nations are quite different in many respects, in their basic civilizational values and cultural ideals they are quite similar, and the EU is a difficult enough project or ideal to achieve as is, imagine trying to use the same model to force the Mongolians into the same political union as the Welsh, its patently absurd.

Even in a country as unified as America, there is much concern from many Americans about the power of their central, federal government, as opposed to the power of the indivdual states (and thats in a country with once language, one culture, and more or less one major religion (Christianity). Likewise many Europeans are uneasy about the idea of a federal Europe, (I wouldn't mind it if it was properly thought out, but I can certainly understand why people in all European countries would be wary of it, and I don't see even a federal Europe as a possiblility for a long time, let alone a federal United States of Earth). I think if you step back a bit and look at what the reality of what your proposing would actually be like or how (god knows) it would operate, you will realize that its a crazy idea. I'm not going to debate it really any more, because I've said as much as is worth saying about this topic.


I know it is an impossibility at present. I hope the EU will become one unified state sometime in the next 100 years. I see the UN becoming more unified over the next 500 years or so. I would like to see a united earth but I know I never will.

There is no need to discuss ,China will rule you all soon.

End of discussion.

SuperPowerChina;521018 wrote: There is no need to discuss ,China will rule you all soon.


You don't study history, then. FWIW neither, by the look, does George Bash.