FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Do you agree we human beings unite to a whole country?





Cliffer
Do you agree we human beings should delete all the borders of all countries and unite to a whole country ? and only keep one government and one army.
pampoon
Cliffer wrote:
Do you agree we human beings should delete all the borders of all countries and unite to a whole country ? and only keep one government and one army.


That would never work. No one would give up their ownership of their land, as well as their power over that land, to unite as a single "country".

Plus, we don't get along as it is, being seperated. How on Earth ( Wink ) could we stand being the same?
deanhills
Agreed. There is too much of competition, and too little cooperation for that. I can't see it happening in our life time. The only time that we may stand a chance of uniting is if we were to be threatened jointly by something from outer space. People always seem to be united when there is some self-interest in it.
Libby
I think we should get rid of all borders and government and armies.
truespeed
If we all lived under the same flag,why would we need an army.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
If we all lived under the same flag,why would we need an army.
Perhaps you would need to have an army to keep people under one flag. Smile
atul2242
One nation may be far from reality and small local bodies responsible and answerable to their populace would be better governance.

But why nations?
ocalhoun
A global 'empire' would be fine, as long as constituent states retained some degree of independence... more independence than the individual states of the US have now... think pre-civil-war USA.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
A global 'empire' would be fine, as long as constituent states retained some degree of independence... more independence than the individual states of the US have now... think pre-civil-war USA.
Perhaps the equivalent of the European Union?
atul2242
ocalhoun wrote:
A global 'empire' would be fine, as long as constituent states retained some degree of independence... more independence than the individual states of the US have now... think pre-civil-war USA.

Utopia???
Libby
atul2242 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
A global 'empire' would be fine, as long as constituent states retained some degree of independence... more independence than the individual states of the US have now... think pre-civil-war USA.

Utopia???


I know that's the word I think of when I imagine pre-civil-war America!
ocalhoun
Libby wrote:
atul2242 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
A global 'empire' would be fine, as long as constituent states retained some degree of independence... more independence than the individual states of the US have now... think pre-civil-war USA.

Utopia???


I know that's the word I think of when I imagine pre-civil-war America!

Not Utopia, perhaps, but better than what we have now.

Enough centralization to prevent wars and facilitate inter-'country' travel and commerce, yet separate enough so that you could choose to move to a different 'country' to avoid a particular one you didn't like.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Libby wrote:
atul2242 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
A global 'empire' would be fine, as long as constituent states retained some degree of independence... more independence than the individual states of the US have now... think pre-civil-war USA.

Utopia???


I know that's the word I think of when I imagine pre-civil-war America!

Not Utopia, perhaps, but better than what we have now.

Enough centralization to prevent wars and facilitate inter-'country' travel and commerce, yet separate enough so that you could choose to move to a different 'country' to avoid a particular one you didn't like.
There were more horses roaming free too. Life may have been harder, but only the fittest survived, and the world was almost limitless.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
There were more horses roaming free too. Life may have been harder, but only the fittest survived, and the world was almost limitless.

More free ones, yes, but less total actually... there are actually more horses today than ever before.

As for life being easier... The people with the largest amount of free time are primitive hunter-gatherers.

Read Thoreau's Walden sometime. Or, for the less erudite, watch the more philosophical parts of the movie Fight Club.
atul2242
ocalhoun wrote:


As for life being easier... The people with the largest amount of free time are primitive hunter-gatherers..


Thats how the early anthropologists described the Incas: people with beautiful bodies who worked only when they had to -- which was occasional.

While there may or may not be more horses today there are definitely are more humans who live longer than before.... But we have really lowered the long term survival chances of humans as a race.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
There were more horses roaming free too. Life may have been harder, but only the fittest survived, and the world was almost limitless.

More free ones, yes, but less total actually... there are actually more horses today than ever before.
Now that is interesting. I did not know that. I'll be watching out for the movie. Thanks.
Nick2008
I believe we'd have to fix the problem of religions fighting other religions over beliefs and customs before all of us unite under one flag.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I'll be watching out for the movie. Thanks.


... but not the book...

*sigh*

Confused
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I'll be watching out for the movie. Thanks.


... but not the book...

*sigh*

Confused
Your sharp eye never cease to amaze me. Laughing Laughing Guess you deserve a sugar cube for this one too. Laughing Laughing Thoreau's Walden. Will look out for it too.
ciureanuc
think about how the world look now... look into your home and you will feel that all the world is one country.
Look at TV and you will see that we started to look at the same shows (somehow).
Look in your parking lot at the office and tell me if you feel that you are a truly separate from the world.
The World IS one country... but in regions. Smile

The saddest part of this is that many areas started to look the same.
In Europe, only the historical and ancient places are different from country to country. Otherwise, all the tall buildings, the clothes, the perfumes, the buses, the metro... all starts to look the same.
Damn it! Bombardier metro-trains are present in Bucharest and Rome, and this company is neither Romanian or Italian... you start to ask: "why I should visit Italy then, if 90% of the stuff is the same?"
Think about that...
deanhills
ciureanuc wrote:
think about how the world look now... look into your home and you will feel that all the world is one country.
Look at TV and you will see that we started to look at the same shows (somehow).
Look in your parking lot at the office and tell me if you feel that you are a truly separate from the world.
The World IS one country... but in regions. Smile

The saddest part of this is that many areas started to look the same.
In Europe, only the historical and ancient places are different from country to country. Otherwise, all the tall buildings, the clothes, the perfumes, the buses, the metro... all starts to look the same.
Damn it! Bombardier metro-trains are present in Bucharest and Rome, and this company is neither Romanian or Italian... you start to ask: "why I should visit Italy then, if 90% of the stuff is the same?"
Think about that...
Today while I was shopping a shopping assistant hovered really close to me in a shop, right in my personal space following me closely where I went. I wonder whether it was my thinking or my antennas that did not want to be at one with his space. In this case there was an overwhelming sense of wishing to be separate. So perhaps what you are saying is partially true for me. At a certain point we are part of a whole, but there is also separateness. Like a leaf that falls off a tree? So the same with countries. We are part of the same world, but also separate.
truespeed
The only time the world would unite would be if we had a common (alien) enemy.
Libby
ciureanuc wrote:
think about how the world look now... look into your home and you will feel that all the world is one country.
Look at TV and you will see that we started to look at the same shows (somehow).
Look in your parking lot at the office and tell me if you feel that you are a truly separate from the world.
The World IS one country... but in regions. Smile

The saddest part of this is that many areas started to look the same.
In Europe, only the historical and ancient places are different from country to country. Otherwise, all the tall buildings, the clothes, the perfumes, the buses, the metro... all starts to look the same.
Damn it! Bombardier metro-trains are present in Bucharest and Rome, and this company is neither Romanian or Italian... you start to ask: "why I should visit Italy then, if 90% of the stuff is the same?"
Think about that...


One nation under Coke.
joostvane
I don't like all being the same. So many cultures would go lost over time. Sometimes, being different is good.
atul2242
Reagan's Globalisation ???
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
The only time the world would unite would be if we had a common (alien) enemy.
I totally agree. A threat from outside, rather inside would have a much greater chance of uniting all countries of the world. Fear of a common enemy is a great unifier. Smile
Lucy
It would never work, due to racial differences, and colapsing economys, the world market would not be able to support us.
spring567
It is a good idea to get a peice world. All the war hapeen because of Gov's fighting.
ocalhoun
spring567 wrote:
All the war hapeen because of Gov's fighting.

Rolling Eyes

Tell that to Pakistan. What government are they fighting right now?
Libby
The Taliban isn't a government, but they're fighting because they want to become one. So it's the same difference.

One giant empire would make absolutely no difference when it comes to the amount of war because there would be constant civil war in attempts to either split up or take over that empire.
deanhills
Libby wrote:
The Taliban isn't a government, but they're fighting because they want to become one. So it's the same difference.

One giant empire would make absolutely no difference when it comes to the amount of war because there would be constant civil war in attempts to either split up or take over that empire.
This is probably off-topic, but just heard from numerous Pakistani friends of mine that news reports that the Government has had successes in getting rid of some of the Taliban are true. I think even if the Taliban would get into Government, that they would continue fighting their neighbouring countries. I can't imagine they would want to become Government, but obviously they would want to be in control through having Taliban in charge of all the right Departments, including and especially the military. I sincerely hope that everyone will fight to keep them from getting to that point.
leontius
Libby wrote:

One giant empire would make absolutely no difference when it comes to the amount of war because there would be constant civil war in attempts to either split up or take over that empire.


Except if the one giant empire enforces laws to prevent wars? Even then there might be non-physical wars (eg. espionage war, cyber war, economic war)...

Let's just hope the aliens come sooner then Wink
ocalhoun
leontius wrote:
Libby wrote:

One giant empire would make absolutely no difference when it comes to the amount of war because there would be constant civil war in attempts to either split up or take over that empire.


Except if the one giant empire enforces laws to prevent wars? Even then there might be non-physical wars (eg. espionage war, cyber war, economic war)...

Let's just hope the aliens come sooner then Wink

There wouldn't be constant rebellions if you give individual 'nations' within that empire as much freedom and independence as possible.

Of course, you'd always have small-scale dissenters, sometimes forming dangerous groups like the Taliban.
No drawing of national borders could get rid of them... They'll continue to fight for their goals no matter if there is only one country, or a million.

What an empire would prevent is large wars between nations.




As for the invading space aliens uniting Earth... I think it more likely that we'll manufacture our own 'space invaders' before that happens. Some colonists leave Earth for the rest of the solar system, perhaps even nearby stars, and these colonies grow. Eventually, they begin to resent being imposed upon by distant Earth, and become independent. Once there are off-Earth 'countries', a war between one of these and a nation on Earth is inevitable, given human nature. Enough rhetoric about how the nations of Earth must unite against this upstart threat from space could unite the planet.
Vrythramax
Well...I don't know how I missed this topic.

I don't think it's possible. The diversity of all the people of the world make it a logistical impossibility. We can't even sit at the same table without a conflict as it stands now, how would we ever agree to anything like a unified military or (egads) a centralized government?

I read in one post here someone mention "utopia", which is spot on in this situation as it means:
The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary wrote:

Function: noun

Etymology: Utopia, imaginary and ideal country in Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More, from Greek ou not, no + topos place Date: 1597

1: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place

2often capitalized : a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions

3: an impractical scheme for social improvement


See: Above Definition, or The Encyclopedia Britannica


As you can see from the reference material it even sounds like an impossibility. If I am not mistaken some European countries are pushing for unification (as witnessed by the acceptence of the Euro as a standardized currency), and the name they are pushing for is "Europa". The Europeans are, by far, closer to achieving a goal of unification than any of the western countries. Unfortunatly (for us Westerners that is), we are the mitigating force for the unification...the world doesn't really like us very much.

Keeping that simple fact in mind that a large section of the world is working towards alienating another large section of the world, the thought of World (Global) Anything (other than War) is rather preposterous.

It's nice thought however.
atul2242
Coming back to the original topic - Humans don't make up countries, they are the working components of the political system which decree the boundaries of the country.
Vrythramax
atul2242 wrote:
Coming back to the original topic - Humans don't make up countries, they are the working components of the political system which decree the boundaries of the country.


OK...you have me confused on 2 counts, why do think we are off-topic, and what exactly do you mean by your statement? Humans are not simply parts of a machine...they are the whole of it. Without humans there would be no government. Human greed makes up borders.

If all "humans" were content with what they had in their own country, and didn't care what went on next door...we wouldn't have very many troubles in the world.
Bannik
pampoon wrote:
Cliffer wrote:
Do you agree we human beings should delete all the borders of all countries and unite to a whole country ? and only keep one government and one army.


That would never work. No one would give up their ownership of their land, as well as their power over that land, to unite as a single "country".

Plus, we don't get along as it is, being seperated. How on Earth ( Wink ) could we stand being the same?


oh you should read watchmen comic....awesome.....anyways
yes
we should break all borders and have no countries...it can work BUT we need a reason too work and be together for EXAMPLE if we were all brown or white (any single race) then we could all live together or if we had a common enemy like aliens or that god told us too work together...there needs to be a universal reason.
leontius
Bannik wrote:

we should break all borders and have no countries...it can work BUT we need a reason too work and be together for EXAMPLE if we were all brown or white (any single race) then we could all live together or [...]


This kind of thinking is the basis of genocide, see. "Bring peace to the world by eradicating every other (*cough* inferior *cough*) races."

So... being the same species, having the same number of heads and hands, having lived together in the same planet for dont-know-how-many years, having a de-facto dominant international language are not enough? (well, seeing how the world is behaving today, it is not enough...)
deanhills
leontius wrote:
Bannik wrote:

we should break all borders and have no countries...it can work BUT we need a reason too work and be together for EXAMPLE if we were all brown or white (any single race) then we could all live together or [...]


This kind of thinking is the basis of genocide, see. "Bring peace to the world by eradicating every other (*cough* inferior *cough*) races."

So... being the same species, having the same number of heads and hands, having lived together in the same planet for dont-know-how-many years, having a de-facto dominant international language are not enough? (well, seeing how the world is behaving today, it is not enough...)
This is almost the equivalent suggestion of going to school in uniform so that everyone looks the same. Who wants clones of everyone? That sounds really boring. They may just as well rather blow up the world. I like character in people, admire creativity, not only in art, but in wit, debate, philosophy, history, in people. I agree with Vrythramax. Most of our differences happen as a result of us caring about what goes on with our neighbours. Like in our families, we care about our brother and are concerned when he goes out and gets involved with gangs that do drugs etc. He gets upset with us and "with our interference", etc. etc. and we then have differences to deal with ...
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
This is almost the equivalent suggestion of going to school in uniform so that everyone looks the same. Who wants clones of everyone?


*Totally Off Topic here...

@deanhills
what you said there is the same principle used by military forces all over the world. They all wear the same uniform for not only showing what country they serve, but also because it gives the people in uniform a sense of belonging to something bigger than they are. "Uniformity", which by definition means: "the quality or state of being uniform or an instance of uniformity", makes it easier to remove the individule from the mix when dealing with large numbers of people....Generals think in terms of numbers...not people.
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
deanhills wrote:
This is almost the equivalent suggestion of going to school in uniform so that everyone looks the same. Who wants clones of everyone?


*Totally Off Topic here...

@deanhills
what you said there is the same principle used by military forces all over the world. They all wear the same uniform for not only showing what country they serve, but also because it gives the people in uniform a sense of belonging to something bigger than they are. "Uniformity", which by definition means: "the quality or state of being uniform or an instance of uniformity", makes it easier to remove the individule from the mix when dealing with large numbers of people....Generals think in terms of numbers...not people.
Smile OK. Maybe we should start a new thread on this topic. There is a difference between wearing a uniform at school for me than a uniform in the military. The military serves a specific purpose, part of what makes it work is discipline, being part of something where your individuality needs to be underplayed. I agree with everything you said about the military, except that this is not the same as being made to wear uniforms to school.

With relevance to the topic of discussion I was trying to say that for the world to go borderless, people would have to be like clones of one another. We would be made to "wear uniforms" in a figurative sense of the meaning.
atul2242
ocalhoun wrote:

Rolling Eyes

Tell that to Pakistan. What government are they fighting right now?


Well it was the American who initially financed and then gave the necessary tonics to make the Taliban strong....
atul2242
Vrythramax wrote:
atul2242 wrote:
Coming back to the original topic - Humans don't make up countries, they are the working components of the political system which decree the boundaries of the country.


OK...you have me confused on 2 counts, why do think we are off-topic, and what exactly do you mean by your statement? Humans are not simply parts of a machine...they are the whole of it. Without humans there would be no government. Human greed makes up borders.

If all "humans" were content with what they had in their own country, and didn't care what went on next door...we wouldn't have very many troubles in the world.

Sorry I was replying to deanhills -
This is probably off-topic, but just heard from numerous Pakistani friends of mine that news reports that the Government has had successes in getting rid of some of the Taliban are true. I think even if the Taliban would get into Government, that they would continue fighting their neighbouring countries. I can't imagine they would want to become Government, but obviously they would want to be in control through having Taliban in charge of all the right Departments, including and especially the military. I sincerely hope that everyone will fight to keep them from getting to that point.

Sorry I should not have used the term humans maybe the working class but I really wanted to differentiate between the rulers and the others...
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

With relevance to the topic of discussion I was trying to say that for the world to go borderless, people would have to be like clones of one another. We would be made to "wear uniforms" in a figurative sense of the meaning.
c
Which is why there needs to be borders. The world can be unified without being borderless.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:

With relevance to the topic of discussion I was trying to say that for the world to go borderless, people would have to be like clones of one another. We would be made to "wear uniforms" in a figurative sense of the meaning.
c
Which is why there needs to be borders. The world can be unified without being borderless.
How would one be doing that? The fact that there is a border usually means that if you cross it without proper permissions in place, that you will be apprehended or shot. Borders usually divide, as far as I can see anyway, but am interested to know why you think how the world can be united even when there are borders?
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
How would one be doing that? The fact that there is a border usually means that if you cross it without proper permissions in place, that you will be apprehended or shot. Borders usually divide, as far as I can see anyway, but am interested to know why you think how the world can be united even when there are borders?


I think you mis-read ocalhoun's post

ocalhoun wrote:

Which is why there needs to be borders. The world can be unified without being borderless.


Theoretically, the world could be united with existing borders. Borders would still be needed to show the limits of a countries, or rulers, sphere of influence. The human race would have to mature a great deal to make that work however. A border doesn't need to indicate a line that shouldn't be crossed. Look at the staelines in the US, we can cross them at will, but each is, and has, it's own sphere of control. The "borders" here are more for other reasons, not to keep "the other guy" out.
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
deanhills wrote:
How would one be doing that? The fact that there is a border usually means that if you cross it without proper permissions in place, that you will be apprehended or shot. Borders usually divide, as far as I can see anyway, but am interested to know why you think how the world can be united even when there are borders?


I think you mis-read ocalhoun's post

ocalhoun wrote:

Which is why there needs to be borders. The world can be unified without being borderless.


Theoretically, the world could be united with existing borders. Borders would still be needed to show the limits of a countries, or rulers, sphere of influence. The human race would have to mature a great deal to make that work however. A border doesn't need to indicate a line that shouldn't be crossed. Look at the staelines in the US, we can cross them at will, but each is, and has, it's own sphere of control. The "borders" here are more for other reasons, not to keep "the other guy" out.
Does this really count however, as these are borders within one country. The equivalent in Canada would be Provinces and Territories, every country has them. I'm talking about real country borders. Guaranteed if the US should decide to fly over Chinese territorial waters or slip up and fly over Russian territory that borders would have a completely different "no-go" meaning. Attempts have been made along NAFTA lines, but the US still seriously want to keep Mexicans out. The closest we could probably get may be the European Union, when their economies are in good shape though ... Smile
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

]Does this really count however, as these are borders within one country. The equivalent in Canada would be Provinces and Territories, every country has them. I'm talking about real country borders. Guaranteed if the US should decide to fly over Chinese territorial waters or slip up and fly over Russian territory that borders would have a completely different "no-go" meaning. Attempts have been made along NAFTA lines, but the US still seriously want to keep Mexicans out. The closest we could probably get may be the European Union, when their economies are in good shape though ... Smile

You remember the example of pre-civil-war USA, right? How ludicrous would it be for Louisiana to have a conflict with Florida over trespassing in territorial waters? Would New Hampshire complain about a flyover by a Pennsylvanian plane? Would Texas complain about all the immigrants coming from Oklahoma?

Yet, because they have borders, they can retain individuality, using laws that suit their area and their people best, and enabling the people of that 'country' to be different from people of other countries without sparking conflicts at every turn.
pampoon
deanhills wrote:
Does this really count however, as these are borders within one country. The equivalent in Canada would be Provinces and Territories, every country has them. I'm talking about real country borders. Guaranteed if the US should decide to fly over Chinese territorial waters or slip up and fly over Russian territory that borders would have a completely different "no-go" meaning. Attempts have been made along NAFTA lines, but the US still seriously want to keep Mexicans out. The closest we could probably get may be the European Union, when their economies are in good shape though ... Smile

In this theoretical world we have created in this post, if a United Earth were created and conjoined all of the world's nations into one, then the current borders of separation would become the equivalent to the US states and Canada's provinces/territories. If we could get along enough o join together as one, then the problems of the "no-go" zones would become non-existent.

The Earth=United States
United States=Alaska

I think that is what ocalhoun is trying to say...
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
Does this really count however, as these are borders within one country. The equivalent in Canada would be Provinces and Territories, every country has them. I'm talking about real country borders. Guaranteed if the US should decide to fly over Chinese territorial waters or slip up and fly over Russian territory that borders would have a completely different "no-go" meaning. Attempts have been made along NAFTA lines, but the US still seriously want to keep Mexicans out. The closest we could probably get may be the European Union, when their economies are in good shape though ... Smile


I would think it would count just as much since we would be a "unified world". Wouldn't that make it kind of like one big country with "state lines" as opposed to country borders? I only used that as an example of how many places can still coincide with one another while still maintaining a degree of autonomy. As for the US wanting to Mexicans out of the country, that's a subject best dealt with in another thread as it would be a conversation/dispute all by itself.

I already touched on the European strides towards unification, and I agree that they are, by far, the closest to making it a reality...but I think it's going to take a whole lot more than just stabilizing their economies before it has a chance of happening. Here again, that's another subject for another thread.
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
I would think it would count just as much since we would be a "unified world". Wouldn't that make it kind of like one big country with "state lines" as opposed to country borders? I only used that as an example of how many places can still coincide with one another while still maintaining a degree of autonomy. As for the US wanting to Mexicans out of the country, that's a subject best dealt with in another thread as it would be a conversation/dispute all by itself.
Surely key to this is that there is a unified language and a single federal Government in which people speak one language, there is one army. My remark about the Mexicans was to show that the border is the typical one that stands in the way of unification, and more typical than US internal borders. I would have thought the Mexican border would be more of a typical example that fits here than the US internal borders.
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
Surely key to this is that there is a unified language and a single federal Government in which people speak one language, there is one army. My remark about the Mexicans was to show that the border is the typical one that stands in the way of unification, and more typical than US internal borders. I would have thought the Mexican border would be more of a typical example that fits here than the US internal borders.


Well as far as a unified language, the USSR showed that a single language wasn't key to running a large political state. The languages spoken were similar, but distinctly different. China is another example of how many differing languages, or dialects, can be spoken within the same country's current borders.The borders as they stand right now (ex. US/Mexico as opposed to US/Canada) are a perfect example of why unification is an unachievable goal...at this time. The internal borders in the US now are more of how they more than likely would be in a unified situation IMO.
pampoon
^Max stole my thought...

Anyways, about the whole "one military" thing, if the nations of the world were to unite into one single Earth, then we wouldn't necessarily need an "army", so to speak. If we all got along enough to become one with each other, there would be no one to fight. Perhaps a small governmental special force could be set up in larger cities to keep peace, and an extra reserve of soldiers for that special instance of alien attack...

But then again, this is all theoretical. Since, as Max stated above, as of now this Unified Earth couldn't be possible with the current situations retarding us.
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Surely key to this is that there is a unified language and a single federal Government in which people speak one language, there is one army. My remark about the Mexicans was to show that the border is the typical one that stands in the way of unification, and more typical than US internal borders. I would have thought the Mexican border would be more of a typical example that fits here than the US internal borders.


Well as far as a unified language, the USSR showed that a single language wasn't key to running a large political state. The languages spoken were similar, but distinctly different. China is another example of how many differing languages, or dialects, can be spoken within the same country's current borders.The borders as they stand right now (ex. US/Mexico as opposed to US/Canada) are a perfect example of why unification is an unachievable goal...at this time. The internal borders in the US now are more of how they more than likely would be in a unified situation IMO.
Well going back to Russia then, weren't new borders established after the fall of the Berlin wall? Quite a number of states were part of Russia because of coercion rather than the real thing. I'd rather go back to the States any day, as if the USSR model would be followed, we would have a unified world under a dictatorship? China is also good at acquiring territories forceably. Smile

pampoon wrote:
^Max stole my thought...

Anyways, about the whole "one military" thing, if the nations of the world were to unite into one single Earth, then we wouldn't necessarily need an "army", so to speak. If we all got along enough to become one with each other, there would be no one to fight. Perhaps a small governmental special force could be set up in larger cities to keep peace, and an extra reserve of soldiers for that special instance of alien attack...
Very good point.

pampoon wrote:
But then again, this is all theoretical. Since, as Max stated above, as of now this Unified Earth couldn't be possible with the current situations retarding us.
Agreed. There is too much selfishness and self-interests for it to be possible in practice. Smile
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Quite a number of states were part of Russia because of coercion rather than the real thing.

As it would be with any unifying world government. Any plea of 'please join my empire' will be rejected by most countries, even if for no other reason than the current leaders of those countries don't want to diminish their power.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Quite a number of states were part of Russia because of coercion rather than the real thing.

As it would be with any unifying world government. Any plea of 'please join my empire' will be rejected by most countries, even if for no other reason than the current leaders of those countries don't want to diminish their power.
Agreed. Letting go of control is probably an almost impossible task.
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
Quite a number of states were part of Russia because of coercion rather than the real thing.


I never attempted to use the USSR as an example of a model way of building, or running a government. Simply as an example of how a unified language wasn't needed to run a large country or government. I noticed you didn't mention China and all it's dialects. Would that be because it's still working and hasn't fallen apart yet? Razz
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
I never attempted to use the USSR as an example of a model way of building, or running a government. Simply as an example of how a unified language wasn't needed to run a large country or government. I noticed you didn't mention China and all it's dialects. Would that be because it's still working and hasn't fallen apart yet? Razz
OK, I understand, I did not click before Smile . I should have mentioned China too and slipped up. With what I said before I would have counted China in.
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
OK, I understand, I did not click before Smile . I should have mentioned China too and slipped up. With what I said before I would have counted China in.


Confused

How can I argue this?? Your resorting to unfair tactics deanhills! Razz
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
deanhills wrote:
OK, I understand, I did not click before Smile . I should have mentioned China too and slipped up. With what I said before I would have counted China in.


Confused

How can I argue this?? Your resorting to unfair tactics deanhills! Razz
How come? I thought I was catching up by adding China in on a post mortem basis as per your suggestion Laughing
Related topics
Lantern Festival
A soldier's rant
Justification for War in Iraq
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Human Beings derived from Monkey
A question of faith - is faith immoral?
Most interesting war
President Bush talks w/ Matt Lauer on Torture
The God Dellusion - Richard Dawkins
What is the usefulness of religion?
Can the church make up its mind?
Royal rave up today - don't care about 'the wedding' though!
Should we build memorials for Middle Eastern casualties?
North Korea cut emergency phone to south
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.