New World Order

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-17 02:14pm

We are New Rome.

Rome, at its height, spanned the Mediterranean and more. The roads they built spanned an entire continent, and the legions that marched along them were a drumbeat of power, using the threat of war to maintain peace. Their language was the dominant, the speech in which trade and philosophy passed, and their government was the model for the most memorable empire in history. Even fifteen centuries after its fall, they are remembered, with their culture, language, calendar, and government influencing or copied in the modern world.

America, too, straddles a continent, and it, too, uses its military to maintain, if not a peace, a calm. All over the world, American soldiers are known, and even if they are hated by their enemies, they are feared by the superpower they are sent by. It holds bases all over the world, Eastern Asia to the Middle East to the Americas again. Our history is a tale of battles, and our military reflects that today. No other ten nations spends as much.

What is spent, of course, is the dollar, and those bills are legal tender across the planet. Cash printed in the nation isolated between two oceans is used everywhere, and our economy is one of the central heartbeats of nations. Our trade, like Rome, spreads everywhere, with the blue jeans and music discs being purchased ten thousand miles away from where they were printed.

America is used as the intermediary, as well. More so then the U.N, America is chosen to play judge between battling nations. We have done so in Ireland, in Korea, in the Middle East, and elsewhere, and most often it is our troops that work to maintain the deal. The U.N., by comparison, makes decisions but does nothing to enforce them – Iraq is the current example. Iraq ignored the treaty it signed with the U.N., and the U.N. did nothing. The United States instead has threatened force for the promise to be kept, with half a dozen aircraft carriers watching.

The U.N. is like its predecessor, the League of Nations. Both dictated terms to the downfallen aggressors of war, and Germany and Iraq ignored them as soon as possible. Germany rebuilt its army, navy, and air force, and also annexed or attacked without provocation. Iraq attacked as well, leaving a million dead in Iran and needing Coalition forces to push them from Kuwait. It is needless to mention how they have treated political dissidents – Hitler built concentration camps, and Hussein used nerve gas on the Kurds.

The problem, of course, is that both of these are not in fact united. They are composed of dozens or hundreds of countries that, if not hating each other, work to improve themselves at the expense of others. There is no unification, just the committee of delegates who wish to change the status quo. There is no common interest, no common humanity or plan for peace – it is just a get-together in which one can pretend to be peaceable, but plan to backstab anyway.

This problem is inherent to the fact that borders exist. These imaginary lines, set in place on maps from one war or another, have no relevance. If you walk to the American-Canadian border, you will find no line drawn through the forest. But this continued practiced of imagining lines, of dividing groups into “us” and “them” has led to the worst blood baths imaginable.

In the 19th century, the price was expensive, but not overly threatening to the human species. But when looked at the 20th, the blood spilt is horrific. It’s unendurable. To defend these lines on a map, to protect one nation state from another and change the name of the government controlling that town or this, ten million people died.

It is a mountain of corpses that is truly astounding. Ten million – quite possibly more then any one person could see in their lifetime. If you added one hundred Super bowl stadiums together, every single person in them, dead of machine gun fire or mustard gas – you can have some picture of the cost.

The truly frightening thing is that it occurred once again, within a generation, with world war two – on more battlefields, and more men, and higher level of technology for the butchery of one’s brethren – it occurred once again. It was a barbarity of unequaled horror, with entire cities removed from existence and mountains of corpses being removed from the extermination camps daily.

It ended in an atomic fireball. Our power to kill has simply outgrown our responsibility for it. It is possible, now, to kill any city in the world, wipe it off the earth and the vast majority of people inside it, in the time it takes for the missile to fly. The Second World War ended, but the Cold War started instantly afterwards, and thousands of nuclear weapons were constructed.

Can you imagine the sheer destructive firepower of these weapons? If one side or the other had blinked, literal billions would have died. Twenty thousand mushroom clouds over that many cities of .1 million population – it’s enough to kill a third of humanity, and many more missiles were created. The radiation and destruction of infrastructure, the blackening of the skies from the dust raised – it is quite possible that no one would have survived the year of first strike, dying of famine or disease. If there were survivors, they would have no connection with modern civilization.

Humanity holds its own extinction in its hands.

This situation demands a change. Humanity has continually shown itself willing to risk it all, which can be admirable, but in the situation of species survival, it’s not to be considered. We are not deserving of holding this loaded gun to our collective head. Some argue disarmament, but every side thinks the same – if I disarm, they will only pretend to, and I will have to submit to their demands. Humanity hides behind its imaginary borders, fearful of itself.

Some think this situation demands a collective giving up of weapons and bringing about of world peace, and while this is admirable, disarming is not an option – the fear that nations hold of each other deny that. Instead, peace has only come about with force or threat of force. The United States merged its thirteen sovereign nations only when the British threat forced them to. Britain only formed its government out of civil war, and Germany united when trade threatened their sinking. Peace has only come about when the fear of something distant overcame the fear of your neighbor.

The concept of United Nations does not work. We have seen that throughout history. The League of Nations couldn’t maintain peace and did not enforce its edicts, and neither does the current U.N. It’s a large assembly of people who will inherently oppose each other, because nationalism is in play. With that in mind, no unity will ever be possible.

Instead, one must look to the concept that has shown its value, its strength stopping world peace. Nationalism is what unites, a concept grander then village or tribe, one that has crossed oceans and had men and women die for people they never met and never would. As it stands now, there is only one state with the power to create a one world nation, and that is America.

Instead of United Nations, in which division is central, let us form a United Nation – a one world order, in which war can be left behind, because there is no one to fight. Erase the lines and limitations of the past, and raise an American flag over the world. We have the power to do this - so let us bring the species together and make the only relevant race the human one. Rome built a peace that lasted for twenty decades – I propose a Pax Americana worldwide.

I do not intend a drowning of the world's culture in our, admittedly, young society. Instead, I want open trade of thoughts and materials, so that the cultures of the past can mix with the technology of the future in a gourmet delight. I do not claim the U.S. is number one in social policy, only that we have the power to bring together those who are.

One can look over the world today, and still see the repugnant policies of the twentieth century still in place – those of police state and mind control, children soldiers and chemical weapons, closed societies and closed minds. Our dark Pandora’s box of horrors, that will plague us forever unless they are exorcised when we have the power and the will to do so. The next superpower, and new ones always rise, may not be as benevolent as we, now, have the option of being.

Let us use America’s might to reshape the earth, and leave the brutalities of technology unshackled behind us. We see the horrors of their use in Africa and Southern Asia, and it would be the duty of our conscience to change the system that leaves starvation and disease in its wake.

In these places, forgotten or willfully ignored by the majority of the people who have the ability to help them, lay tens of thousands of families, shattered by the atrocity that is war, ravaged by diseased and injured by weapons, starving in the streets. They live in shacks, and drink from corrupted water, and their bodies soon wilt under the barrage. You’ve seen the pictures on television, and probably changed the channel. I know I have.

It is time to stop changing the channel – we have the ability to leave these horrors behind for the history books, where children are envious of a concentration camp victim’s meal. People have accused the United States of being too imperial in the past, but I say we are not imperial enough. We should go to these places and remove the tin pot dictators that hold them in poverty, pocketing aid funding for war machines. Instead of mine fields, let us build schools.

Because, in addition to the horrors of poverty, lay the horror of racism. Genocide and tribal hatred still has its place in Africa, and with the tools of today, murder is an easy task. America is the wealthiest country in the world, with the most funded military. Go to these places, and remove the tyrants that dictate there – spend the money that we hold in such abundance to dam the rivers of blood.

USA, you claim to be the bastion of democracy. The time has come to back up your claims. Today in the world, outside our well kept borders, there is slavery, genocide, and starvation. You are the richest, most powerful country in the world. How can you claim to support the views that founded our country, that all men are created equal, when you continue to let this occur? Why should men and women lack human rights for the mere reason of rogue dictators?

It is estimated that twenty seven million people still live in slavery, and the Holocausts of the 40s still continue – Two million died in the Rwanda genocides. If the USA is what it claims to be, this should not be allowed to go on. It cannot go on. We are citizens of the world, and as citizens, we have a responsibility to make sure people with malevolent intentions do not wreak havoc on others. Like Roma, America should spread its civilizing influence to the horizon.

1. Ancient Rome, Robert Payne, 2001
2. Rome, Fowler and Charlesworth, 1960

Copyright Jeremy Hollembaek, 2003.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-02-17 04:02pm

The problem with the United Nations is that it IS a democracy. Many of the ineffective policies sited (for example ignoring Iraq and Rwanda), are due to the actions of individual countries (including the U.S.) looking out for their own interests.

In the case of Iraq, it was the decision of countries like the U.S. and Britain (and France and Germany, etc) to ignore the actions of Saddam Hussein for so long. It was not some invisible UN force allowing Saddam to reign unchecked. Now when the U.S. (and Britain) want to act, there is disagreement over how it should be implemented. These same actions could have been taken in 1995 (whether forced inspection or war), there just was no one willing to act.

In the case of Rwanda, you had a Canadian commander screaming for the UN to change his mandate to allow him to intervene and to send more troops. You had countries like Ghana with thousands of battle-hardened UN troops waiting to go in, but then you had the collective American and European nations (led by the US) not wanting another Somalia, and refused to use the word "genocide" (used the phrase "acts of genocide" instead) because that would force them to act. Even though the U.S. wasn't required to send troops (African countries were able willing) the mere chance of the U.S. being required to fight in Rwanda was enough for the State Department to lobby the UN not to intervene.

Replacing the UN with a US ruled force would mean more decisive decisions (like any dictatorship), but these decision would still be in the interest of the U.S. and not the world. You could still have wrong decisions being made, you will still have inaction. And, you're going to have more political turmoil when these decisions are made ... why? Because it is no longer a democracy if you have one country of 300 million dictating policy to the remaining 5 billion.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-02-17 05:39pm

The problem with the UN, at the moment and with regards to Iraq, is that the French want to become a major political power. They think they can score points if they can check America. And the would if they could - however, the French lack the military power to do anything, and if they had it their troops would just fuck up. Iraq happens to be a good issue for them to side against the U.S. on (I'm willing to bet their illegal oil deals with Iraq have something do with it...).

As for Africa, the problem is that those countries aren't worth the money. There are very few resources worth getting from Africa. And if it was worth it, you would basically have to contain the current adult population as you educate the next generate to think beyond their tribal and national differences.

Now, as for a world government, it currently isn't possible. Countries like China and Russia would get pissed if we did what you proposed, and that would result in a nuclear war. However, I can the possibility on the horizon. Give weapons development another 50 to 100 years, and there will probably be powerful lasers based in orbit that can strike anywhere in the world quickly and effectively, against almost any target, especially ballistic missiles.

I'm no long so concerned about massive NBC warfare. I'm more worry about the threats possed by rogue nations and terrorists. A man not afraid of dying for a cause and has no moral opposition to taking millions of people with him is the single worst threat the world has faced.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-02-17 06:45pm

Arrow Mk84 wrote:As for Africa, the problem is that those countries aren't worth the money.

LOL. The main reason most of Africa is in perpetual civil war is because of disputes over which ethnic group(s) should have access to the vast natural resources wealth of their respective countries.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-02-17 07:36pm

If those resources where actually worth going after, as in they could be extracted for less cost than else where, then foreign countries would have a military presence in Africa and foreign countries would be gutting Africa for all its worth. While Africa's resources were important during Imperial times, they simply aren't worth the effort today.

Hell, the only African export I can think of that is really worth the effort is Diamonds, and thats only because DeBeers says so.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-02-17 08:30pm

Arrow Mk84 wrote:If those resources where actually worth going after, as in they could be extracted for less cost than else where, then foreign countries would have a military presence in Africa and foreign countries would be gutting Africa for all its worth. While Africa's resources were important during Imperial times, they simply aren't worth the effort today.

Hell, the only African export I can think of that is really worth the effort is Diamonds, and thats only because DeBeers says so.

So why is France in the Ivory Coast with their military right now? And if all they have are diamonds, why were so many people killing each other for them, especially when many sources claim that DeBeers is sitting on storehouses of diamonds, just to keep the prices high?

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-02-17 08:53pm

Alright, what do they have, how much of it and who wants it?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-17 11:27pm

The problem with the United Nations is that it IS a democracy. This, of course, is why I think them ineffective, in that they are not united in the cause of mutual advancement – such as in the United States or other democracies – but they are divided, pursuing their own aims. Instead of their combined interest, the world, they divide by this line or that.

And for what good is democracy if it is used to ignore human rights? I am not claiming this state or that is the source of the evils done in this world, allowing wickedness to continue while one nation continues voting to forget it. Looking through the history of the U.N, this is obviously not true – the problem is in the inherent nature of the United Nations. Instead of acting for the betterment of the world, that is put on hold when it is inconvenient for the powers that be.

Replacing the UN with a US ruled force would mean more decisive decisions; and that is why I support it. But that does not entail the colonialism that was built in the past. It has been shown that those ‘colonized’ did not support such action, spending life itself to get away from it. The U.S. itself did that, at its birth, and I do not propose the unshackling of one tyranny to bring about the other.

Instead, I propose the divided nations and peoples becoming one, so the world’s resources could stop genocide and famine. Not the Americas dictating the world, but the world America become, and representation in Congress by all states. The Bill of Rights will act to protect the downtrodden from tyrants, and the people of the world choose one leader, who could use the world’s resources to their support.

I agree, one world government is completely implausible at this point – but I think it bears thinking about, and action in the future. The main reason is that the world is no longer as large as it once was, and conversations can happen instantly, and people can travel around the world in a day. It is in our best interest to ensure the traveling is benign.

Assorted places around the world are complete travesties to live in, whether by nature or humanity’s darker side. Let this new America change that, in that tyrants are brought down and human rights are the necessity. Famines and mass murder? No more. It has been stated Africa is simply not worth the investment – I disagree. Even disregarding the fact that, once improved, they will have tens of thousands of doctors, teachers and philosophers – this is about human *lives*. Why should the dollar sign matter in their saving?

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-17 11:46pm

Finally! I've found someone else other than me that sees America as a New Rome!

Enforcer Talen: That won't happen. The US will support whoever's in power that will be most beneficial to us, like in Latin America. And I'm sure many people in the world would NOT want to be subjected by the US. Look at the problems Britain had.

If the world united, we wouldn't have any wars anymore, we'd have civil wars.

Personally, and this is going to sound cruel and it probably is, if there's no real captial to be gained from investments like that in Africa, it's [literally] not worth it. Governments never risk their own troops and resources just to help little dirt countries if there's nothing really to be had from it. Lives lost in a distant part of the world don't matter in the big scheme of things.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-02-18 12:55am

Lets move you to africa or some other 'dirt' country and tell you you're not worth it to un install the evil dictator keeping you from a decent life.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-02-18 12:59am

darthdavid wrote:Lets move you to africa or some other 'dirt' country and tell you you're not worth it to un install the evil dictator keeping you from a decent life.

Why should we do for them what we won't do for ourselves?

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-18 01:06am

darthdavid wrote:Lets move you to africa or some other 'dirt' country and tell you you're not worth it to un install the evil dictator keeping you from a decent life.

Appeal to emotion. Here's one for ya form my side: How would you like to be that American pilot who was beaten, spit on and dragged through the streets in Somalia? Yes, they really wanted our help there, didn't they?

Let's leave Africa to sort out its problems by itself. We don't need to be the police of the world and make everyone happy.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-18 02:37am

To watch evil be performed and do nothing is to be evil - that is a long standing facet of justice. In that manner, it is evil to watch evil done by tyrants in the middle east and let them go on. Let us instead do what is right, instead of convenien. I propose a cleaning out of the pestilence that holds much of the world in its grip - that of tyranny and genocidal self righteousness.
Britian failed because they formed colonies, where they ruled over others. This did not work because the hunger for independence, that is, self government, is essential to humanity. Forget the old, failed colonialism, and build a new imperialism - where countries, whether beginning humane or brought to it, are allowed to Congress, and every man can vote for his view in rulership.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-18 02:56am

I kind of proposed the same thing in the World Government thread. I don't mind some forms of dictators, though. I mean, as long as there are laws restraining them from being overly cruel. Kind of like a contitutional monarchy.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-02-18 08:37am

here is a question:

Would America want one world government? If America stood for democracy, would America want the 5 billion people of the world "telling it what to do". The current population of America would have about 1/3 the voting power of China alone.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-02-18 10:52am

Enlightenment wrote: LOL. The main reason most of Africa is in perpetual civil war is because of disputes over which ethnic group(s) should have access to the vast natural resources wealth of their respective countries.

Africa is a shithole. Give me a few million dollars and an army of battle
hardened mercs, and I'll take over a nice African country and prove to
them that colonialism by the White Man (TM) is a good thing (TM)

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-18 01:07pm

Zoink wrote:here is a question:

Would America want one world government? If America stood for democracy, would America want the 5 billion people of the world "telling it what to do". The current population of America would have about 1/3 the voting power of China alone.

The original thirteen colonies debated that as well, and the current congress form reflects that. There will be places with different populations, always, but that hasn't led to the tyranny of the majority. Congress has always limited the President, and the Supreme Court limits Congress. A tyranny in such a tripod is inplausible, particularly when the billion population of China will not vote the same way - you will have your one hundred million democrats and one hundred million republicans.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2003-02-18 01:11pm

I may not be white, or even an American, but I find myself agreeing with Sheppard on this.

If not for colonialism, a lot of people would still be stuck without TV, radio, cars, and the internet. The rabid anti-americanism prevalent in so many places is simply an unfortunate result of envy from the rest of the world.

Hey, any good choices on which part of Africa might be a nice place to set up?

Would America want one world government? If America stood for democracy, would America want the 5 billion people of the world "telling it what to do". The current population of America would have about 1/3 the voting power of China alone.

Does that mean the chinese will screw the US simply because they have more voting power? Possible. Yeah, it's one of the pitfalls of democracy. Majority is not always right.

The Crazed Guy

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-19 07:23am

Until we spend a few millenia travelling the stars, and/or get overrun by a Ghengis Khan wannabe (thus uniting the world), we're all much better off having a very weak world government like the UN.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-19 02:27pm

Are you saying the Khan wannabe comes from the stars, or that he will be a human superconqueror?

Also, explain why a very weak world government would be better then a strong one that keeps the peace and has quick reactions to natural or political disasters.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-20 02:31am

Well, the Khan guy can be from the stars if he was born on an Earth colony...

Anyway...My reason for support of a weak fed. world government is due to human nature. My ideal government would be one that permits small-scale wars between nations if they cannot settle their differences peacefully. Remember all those strict rules of conduct Europe adhered to? We could adopt something like that. Only fight in unpopulated areas, all soldiers must be willing to fight, no draftees, etc. Violence is something that's going to stay with us, my friend. It would be best to just let it run its course in times of conflict...In small doses, of course. We don't need any nuke fights on our hands.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-20 02:32am

Oh yes. I also sight the reasons Shep, Zoink and them pointed out.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-20 01:47pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:Well, the Khan guy can be from the stars if he was born on an Earth colony...

Anyway...My reason for support of a weak fed. world government is due to human nature. My ideal government would be one that permits small-scale wars between nations if they cannot settle their differences peacefully. Remember all those strict rules of conduct Europe adhered to? We could adopt something like that. Only fight in unpopulated areas, all soldiers must be willing to fight, no draftees, etc. Violence is something that's going to stay with us, my friend. It would be best to just let it run its course in times of conflict...In small doses, of course. We don't need any nuke fights on our hands.

Indeed, violence will always be with us. I don't think any utopia we construct will be without it. But the violence of total war in which two nations grapple with each other need not be necessary. With the weapons of today, it can leave millions dead, and there's always a chance that a nuclear weapon will go off. How will you remove them from nations? We are having a lot of trouble with that in Iraq. Imagine the trouble if we were trying that in China, or Russia.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-20 11:44pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:Indeed, violence will always be with us. I don't think any utopia we construct will be without it. But the violence of total war in which two nations grapple with each other need not be necessary. With the weapons of today, it can leave millions dead, and there's always a chance that a nuclear weapon will go off. How will you remove them from nations? We are having a lot of trouble with that in Iraq. Imagine the trouble if we were trying that in China, or Russia.

Ever read Dune? Strict set of combat rules adherd to by all member nations. Severe transgresions are dealt with harshly. VERY harshly.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-20 11:55pm

yep. sardauker - of course, they need an emperor and superpowered regime to bring that about, where everyone pays him homage. similar to my vision of the american president.