StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Enforcer Talen wrote:a good number of people have wanted a one world nation. everyday you can see posters that want world peace, and can you honestly think of a way that brings about world peace without everyone considering themselves the same nation?

Yes. Your dismal failure of imagination does not constitute disproof of the concept.

theski wrote:Vympel, so a bunch of peace activists write an article.. I give it as much criedence as you would if the Rand Corp wrote an opposing peace. Seems the political and Ideological split on this BBs is wide and never the 2 shall meet but WTF it is good fun!!

Notice how the knee-jerk right-winger comes to a conclusion before he's even read the article. In a subsequent message he writes that he hasn't had time to "parse" it yet!

This is typical of the way extreme partisans react to information: if it does not suit your pre-ordained conclusion, dismiss it out of hand even if you haven't studied it yet. Attack it because it leads to a conclusion you don't like, so it must have come from biased sources (or "peace activists" in this case), even without bothering to check who those sources are. Dismiss it as propaganda, without bothering to look at it for flaws. Close your mind, stick your head in the sand, tell yourself you're right. Wonderful method.

You know after re-reading the article I have come to the conclusion that this would never-ever happen. Why? Can you say China and India? 2 billion consumers that need to be clothed, fed and excesorised! Also two former colonies of the UK. The last thing they would appreciate would be a repeat of the past. While no country its self is equal to the US in every single catagory, there are a few countries put together that can match it.

Basically if the US intends to build the next Imperium, it better not piss off China and India. All they have to do is tighten their markets to the US and open them to Japan and the EU. Bye-bye American economy.

However given the virtual back flip(s) the US has done over the years to open up the Chinese market, the last thing it would want to do is close them. Thus this is no more in the end more right-wing wank festing, giving the ultra left-wing some nightmares and a little more paranoia. Aint the world grand?

Durran Korr wrote:

We don't have those infamous Km-long food lines I sometimes see in U.S news

We don't have food lines regularly. Food is incredibly abundant in America.

Granted we're in a recession now, so we have a few. But they aren't a normal occurence. And a KM long?

Well, I saw it on TV, so I really have no kind of written proof. What impressed me was the sheer size of the line (they said it was more than a mile long) and the fact that it was composed by normal people, many even having a job, but with a low salary. It was recent, too, because some of them were asked what they thought of the incoming war.

But I concede I don't have details about it, and I have more the impression of it than actual facts concerning where, when, etc. It was in the country, not in a city, and the food being given consisted of donations from supermarket chains.

I wonder if the EU would ever LET the Americans join it anyway lol. Would they really want us there or are we too disliked? I am not sure. IT would be cool if people could actually get along, but I do not think thats a realistic goal.

Strate_Egg wrote:I wonder if the EU would ever LET the Americans join it anyway lol. Would they really want us there or are we too disliked? I am not sure. IT would be cool if people could actually get along, but I do not think thats a realistic goal.

You are not disliked. Many people dislike the current U.S government and external politics, and find the influence of religion in the U.S disturbing. As for the rest, there's no other place in the world where an American would feel more at home.

In a hypothetical situation, you'd be a perfect candidate to join, but you'd always have to change some legislation to conform to the E.U laws. Namely, the death penalty would have to go.

Crown wrote:You know after re-reading the article I have come to the conclusion that this would never-ever happen. Why? Can you say China and India? 2 billion consumers that need to be clothed, fed and excesorised! Also two former colonies of the UK. The last thing they would appreciate would be a repeat of the past. While no country its self is equal to the US in every single catagory, there are a few countries put together that can match it.

Yes, but if these 'New American Century' people have their way with successive administrations, trying to stop the rise of any other nation to preeminence will be precisely what they will do. I don't think they'll succeed either.

Basically if the US intends to build the next Imperium, it better not piss off China and India. All they have to do is tighten their markets to the US and open them to Japan and the EU. Bye-bye American economy.

Partly why the Middle East is so important- it's oil means it's the greatest geostrategic prize in world history- as the State Department said back in the 1950s.

However given the virtual back flip(s) the US has done over the years to open up the Chinese market, the last thing it would want to do is close them. Thus this is no more in the end more right-wing wank festing, giving the ultra left-wing some nightmares and a little more paranoia. Aint the world grand?

I agree- these are the fantasies of some of the absolute fringe of the political spectrum. The scary thing is the people who signed it have the ear of the President.

Colonel Olrik wrote:

Strate_Egg wrote:I wonder if the EU would ever LET the Americans join it anyway lol. Would they really want us there or are we too disliked? I am not sure. IT would be cool if people could actually get along, but I do not think thats a realistic goal.

You are not disliked. Many people dislike the current U.S government and external politics, and find the influence of religion in the U.S disturbing. As for the rest, there's no other place in the world where an American would feel more at home.

In a hypothetical situation, you'd be a perfect candidate to join, but you'd always have to change some legislation to conform to the E.U laws. Namely, the death penalty would have to go.

And after you did that we will all have this big huge debate to see if you really are European first. Sorry couldn't resist.

Vympel wrote:

Basically if the US intends to build the next Imperium, it better not piss off China and India. All they have to do is tighten their markets to the US and open them to Japan and the EU. Bye-bye American economy.

Partly why the Middle East is so important- it's oil means it's the greatest geostrategic prize in world history- as the State Department said back in the 1950s.

All the more reason to ween ourselves off the dependance on oil. The EU is ahead in those terms than any other nation, AFAIK.

Crown wrote: And after you did that we will all have this big huge debate to see if you really are European first. Sorry couldn't resist.

LMAO, that's funny. You see, they're technically Europeans, because Azores is portuguese, Portugal is european, and Azores is in the middle distance from America to Europe.

Colonel Olrik wrote:

Crown wrote: And after you did that we will all have this big huge debate to see if you really are European first. Sorry couldn't resist.

LMAO, that's funny. You see, they're technically Europeans, because Azores is portuguese, Portugal is european, and Azores is in the middle distance from America to Europe.

LMAO, Ahhh but you see Azores is and island, so it doesn't really belong to any continental shelf base, but America is clearly, well, in America and not Europe

Enforcer Talen wrote:snip

I, personally, dont want the world to be a usa colony either. it's just begging for trouble. it would almost certainly start the armageddon I am trying to avoid. instead, I want to unite humanity, unite the species, with america as the tool. its the current lone superpower, so is the necessary. your right, europe does have a better standard in some places - which is why I want them and usa together. no colonies, no lack of representation - so that they can influence as you said.

The essential trouble with this line of reasoning is that you use America as the tool. Do that and you unite the world against you.

Even though the article is from a respected newspaper, upon further investigation it all sounded like standard-issue conspiracy theory paranoia to me.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Enforcer Talen wrote:snip

I, personally, dont want the world to be a usa colony either. it's just begging for trouble. it would almost certainly start the armageddon I am trying to avoid. instead, I want to unite humanity, unite the species, with america as the tool. its the current lone superpower, so is the necessary. your right, europe does have a better standard in some places - which is why I want them and usa together. no colonies, no lack of representation - so that they can influence as you said.

The essential trouble with this line of reasoning is that you use America as the tool. Do that and you unite the world against you.

what other tool is available?

The essential trouble with this line of reasoning is that you use America as the tool. Do that and you unite the world against you.

I don't think we need to worry about the world uniting against us. They already are, for the most part; hell, our President gets worse press than Saddam Hussein and Mad Bob Mugabe.

Enforcer Talen wrote:

The essential trouble with this line of reasoning is that you use America as the tool. Do that and you unite the world against you.

what other tool is available?

You could imagine something similar to the E.U. A strong economical + defensive + democratic alliance between the U.S, the E.U and some other willing rich states. This group would then be powerful and rich enough to develop other states/group of states willing to join because of that. You'd have South America, for example, reaching our levels of prosperity in a few decades.

Above all, we would need patience, a lot of patience. The contruction of a federation on that levels would be a matter of centuries, not years or decades.

Colonel Olrik wrote:

Enforcer Talen wrote:

The essential trouble with this line of reasoning is that you use America as the tool. Do that and you unite the world against you.

what other tool is available?

You could imagine something similar to the E.U. A strong economical + defensive + democratic alliance between the U.S, the E.U and some other willing rich states. This group would then be powerful and rich enough to develop other states/group of states willing to join because of that. You'd have South America, for example, reaching our levels of prosperity in a few decades.

Above all, we would need patience, a lot of patience. The contruction of a federation on that levels would be a matter of centuries, not years or decades.

that is closer to what I envision, and it will take a few generations to really cement - but my fear is that it will just be discarded later on, most probably in blood - with a global nationalism, its harder to do that.

Enforcer Talen wrote:
that is closer to what I envision, and it will take a few generations to really cement - but my fear is that it will just be discarded later on, most probably in blood - with a global nationalism, its harder to do that.

History says otherwise. All unions based on nationalism and force eventually failed, from Rome to the URSS.

The E.U is something new. It is based on sharing prosperity, and on having a group of countries who share the same interests getting closer and closer together, until a point is reached when they're basically one and the same. The difference between my first travels into France, ten years ago, and my last ones is astounding. In the past, we were strangers from a poor country, now we're treated as equals.

In this situation, the worst punishment a state can get is to be expelled from the club, so it's a bit ridiculous for him declaring a war to leave.

Portugal can leave the E.U whenever we desire, but it wouldn't be a very smart move.


edit: Yes, I'm in love with the idea behind the E.U. So sue me

Durran Korr wrote:I don't think we need to worry about the world uniting against us. They already are, for the most part;

Bwwhahahaha!

That's so stupid that it really doesn't deserve an answer above and beyond 'get an education.'

If the world was united against the US, you'd be shivering in the dark as a result of being on the wrong end of a trade embargo.

hell, our President gets worse press than Saddam Hussein and Mad Bob Mugabe.

With good reason. Mugabe is only a threat to the people of Zimbabwe. Saddam is at most only a threat to the Middle East. Shrubby's imperialist vision is a threat to global security.

Colonel Olrik wrote:All unions based on nationalism and force eventually failed, from Rome

That's a bit harsh isn't it? The reasons for rome's fall were not due to it's use of force, Hell people fought wars to join the empire...

Portugal can leave the E.U whenever we desire, but it wouldn't be a very smart move.

Retarded would be the word I would use. Anyone who tried would be surrounded by a very powerful neighbor who would be peeved.

edit: Yes, I'm in love with the idea behind the E.U.

Here Here.

Bwwhahahaha!
That's so stupid that it really doesn't deserve an answer above and beyond 'get an education.'
If the world was united against the US, you'd be shivering in the dark as a result of being on the wrong end of a trade embargo.

Not necessarily. France seems to disprove pretty thoroughly of U.S. foreign policy, but I don't see Chirac calling for embargoes and boycotts of American goods. The other way around, if anything; I've heard French people expressing fear of an American boycott of THEIR goods.

With good reason. Mugabe is only a threat to the people of Zimbabwe. Saddam is at most only a threat to the Middle East. Shrubby's imperialist vision is a threat to globalsecurity.

Indeed, I can see how the U.S. is imperialist, given how we're planning on withdrawing from the Korean border and will withdraw, according to Wolfowitz, from the Middle East after Saddam is taken care of.

Bush was viewed as something of an isolationist during his bid for the Presidency. It appears that isolationism may be where the Administration's policy may lead, eventually.

Durran Korr wrote: Not necessarily. France seems to disprove pretty thoroughly of U.S. foreign policy, but I don't see Chirac calling for embargoes and boycotts of American goods. The other way around, if anything; I've heard French people expressing fear of an American boycott of THEIR goods.

The E.U economy is so strong that the U.S economy would be the first one to suffer with an embargo. And viceversa. Any kind of embargo is thus out of the question.

Also, disproving the foreign policy of a country does not equal to being against the said country in other matters.

Colonel Olrik wrote:

Durran Korr wrote: Not necessarily. France seems to disprove pretty thoroughly of U.S. foreign policy, but I don't see Chirac calling for embargoes and boycotts of American goods. The other way around, if anything; I've heard French people expressing fear of an American boycott of THEIR goods.

The E.U economy is so strong that the U.S economy would be the first one to suffer with an embargo. And viceversa. Any kind of embargo is thus out of the question.

Also, disproving the foreign policy of a country does not equal to being against the said country in other matters.

You're absolutely right. I meant to say in my earlier post that the world seems fairly united against us in the realm of foreign policy, but I didn't make that clear.

Enforcer Talen wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Enforcer Talen wrote:snip

I, personally, dont want the world to be a usa colony either. it's just begging for trouble. it would almost certainly start the armageddon I am trying to avoid. instead, I want to unite humanity, unite the species, with america as the tool. its the current lone superpower, so is the necessary. your right, europe does have a better standard in some places - which is why I want them and usa together. no colonies, no lack of representation - so that they can influence as you said.

The essential trouble with this line of reasoning is that you use America as the tool. Do that and you unite the world against you.

what other tool is available?

International law, enforced by the UN with properly equipped UN forces under the authority of the UN not individual nations. That is aone option.
Ultimatly a peacfull world can only be acheived if nations are willing to be part of it.

Durran Korr wrote:

The essential trouble with this line of reasoning is that you use America as the tool. Do that and you unite the world against you.

I don't think we need to worry about the world uniting against us. They already are, for the most part; hell, our President gets worse press than Saddam Hussein and Mad Bob Mugabe.

Lol, thats true, but then Mugabe, Saddam and Kim il Jong, or however you spell that twits name, cannot project power from one point in the globe to the other. Nor do they have very stong economies or a world sapnning culture.