Thanks for the nominations. Please vote and stuff now.
if "noone" leads the world
"someone" will definetly try
That is the trouble. If no-one is leading the world then others will try to attain supremacy. It will seem more feasable to do so if there is not one country/organisation leading the world than if some seemingly unconquerable giant is presiding with benevolence.
If no-one is leading the world it will mean more war. If the unconquerable giant uses tact, intelligence and modesty in leading the countries of the world then we have a Utopian society. This will never be attained while the arrogance of the US is the world leader, in all probablity it will never be acheived but we can strive toward it to acheive a semblance of this world order.
Incidently, I voted for Outer Mongolia in the poll.
If having no dominant country will lead to war and a struggle to become King of the Hill, then peace on Earth is hopeless.
A lot is made of the US being arrogant lately. Folks, I got a news flash for you, we have been toppling countries since 1900. Our current conduct is just something more above the radar and visible, but it is certainly nothing new. Our conduct is not just unique, but rather stereotypical of what world leaders have always been.
And, as with our predecessors, we will ultimately collapse.
In fact, you should all blame England for causing the American Revolution. Their arrogance and greed caused us to say "Enough taxes, enough exploitation, we want a divorce". The United States would never have come to be were it not for England.
I think any single dominant country, regardless the name of said country, would soon mimick the actions of prior world leaders.
My point is that replacing one world leader with a new one solves absolutely nothing. Countries are lead by the most functionally sociopathic individuals in a society, the ones who desire power and control and have no remorse or anxiety about lying. Those despicable people called "politicians".
So in nominating "no-one", I was hoping that we could actually make use of a remodeled United Nations so that we could start looking at our planet as one big country. Instead of a dominant country raping and pillaging the resources of the lesser countries (Iraq-oil) and destroying the natural habitats of other countries for short term benefits (South America-cheap meat), we could approach things a little smarter, as hurting anyone would ultimately hurt us all.
Couldn't we do that now? Yeah, right, dream on. That would mean that most countries stand of living would plummet and NO government is going to passively allow this. The world has to hit rock bottom before change can happen and we have to build from there, as a unified planet.
Wow, am I idealistic, or what? Too much coffee.
Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?
Hobbes, that's precisely what I wrote
Far from having no-one as a world leader - we need a fucking great behemoth conglomerate, spewing benevolence and wisdom at the inhabitants of the world. A UN ten times as big, 20 times as powerful, 300 times less corrupt and infinitely less self serving.
To your justification of the American arrogance; who cares about history, what matters is now and US foreign policy is arrogant therefore the US is perceived by other countries as arrogant.
Saying the other's have done likewise in the past as a justification (was it?) baffles me. Surely one can learn from past mistakes such that they are not repeated.
Btw, I don't think you're being idealistic but the one big happy family thing we're both advocating is something Karl Marx would have approved of
I'm not justifying it Manker, just explaining that it is sadly a reflection of political nature.Originally Posted by manker
You know that stuff about power corrupting.
It doesn't matter the era, the country, or the religion, it all boils down to corruption and exploitation by the political leaders.
That is why I think the world needs to take a different tack in an attempt to combat our corrupt nature.
I think that I have learned from history that a dominant world power is not a good thing. We need leadership that represents all people.
The huge barrier would be the obstacles brought by organized religion. BAH!
This new world won't have a chance until China and the US crumble, so it is some time off yet. This gives all those damn people out there a chance to learn to speak English and get rid of that damn metric system. Back in the day, we picked a peck of pickled peppers, and we liked it!
/puts down coffee mug and slowly walks away.
Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?
why???Originally Posted by hobbes
why not french, italian, spanish or chinese???
maybe i misunderstood what you were trying to say... (and i hope i did...) but anyway... why?
la cucaracha, la cucaracha, ya no puede caminar...
- JOIN our fold@home team... ... something about genetics n' stuff
-i just had a pm conversation with MYSELF!!!... ... ...wow... that's sad
i just want the french to be in charge for a week so they can say "cowards, eh?" "cheese eating surrender monkeys?" then some how piss on the whitehouse from a great hight. after that we fix the UN