World peace

[DBowling]

I've been thinking about different societies throughout time. All world powers have eventually fallen. I, and i think others assume that because of nuclear weapons, we are less likely to see another major war. But isn't it inevitable if the world is staying away from unification? If, however, we are moving towards a unification of the world (EU but bigger) we may create a world society that is much more peaceful in the future. Much further in the future, of course.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Convince your countrymen /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Actually, most European, Asian and African countries are ready for it as long as the progress is gradual.

EDIT: At second thought, to include Africa was exaggerating.

[lehighguy]

People from one regoin don't want to live the way people in another do. Take recent events in the EU. Unification will never happen.

[DBowling]

[ QUOTE ]
People from one regoin don't want to live the way people in another do. Take recent events in the EU. Unification will never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

tribes have unified. our colonies unified. china is unified. to say unification will never happen is narrow minded. You are right about recent events with the EU, but the fact that the euro has succeeded is further evidence that unification could happen.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
People from one regoin don't want to live the way people in another do. Take recent events in the EU. Unification will never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well at least they were voting about unification instead of droping bombs on each others capital cities which they were doing only 60 years ago.

Think of any European Nation and you will not have to go back very in history to get to a point were there were massive war causing cultural differances within that nation, e.g England-Scotland. You can then go back even further and find war causing cultural differances within the sub division of the modorn nation, e.g Celts v Britons V Saxons etc.

Unification is the historical trend and will not be stoping any time soon. Especialy as the emergent mono culture spread by market forces and modern media supplants ever more tired notions of nationalism and the nation state.

Amongst many, especialy the young the T-shirt you wear and the music you listen to identifies you more than the country you come from.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
People from one regoin don't want to live the way people in another do. Take recent events in the EU. Unification will never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

European debate has gradually moved from "should we cooperate or try to crush our opponents" to "how do we cooperate". This last referendums were about the latter. I am yet to see any Republican ask in this forum "how do we cooperate with fundamental moslems".

Europe has come a step further on this development scale. Admit it! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[superleeds]

At the moment war is profitable, as it always has been. As soon as it isn't the world will unify. Of course the trick is to survive that long.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Unification is the historical trend and will not be stoping any time soon. Especialy as the emergent mono culture spread by market forces and modern media supplants ever more tired notions of nationalism and the nation state.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be correct, but I think people who favor some form of one-world government should be upfront about it, like you are. Very few people in power in the U.S. will admit this publicly. Strobe Talbot, Clinton's Oxford friend and former Undersecretary of State, was one of the few American government officials who I can remember saying they favored eliminating the nation-state in favor of a one-world government.


It is a debate we are going to have eventually in the U.S., but if there was a huge desire for it among the American people, I am guessing politicians would be advocating it publicly, and they are not.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
European debate has gradually moved from "should we cooperate or try to crush our opponents" to "how do we cooperate". This last referendums were about the latter. I am yet to see any Republican ask in this forum "how do we cooperate with fundamental moslems".

[/ QUOTE ]

There are three ways you can cooperate with "fundamentalist" Muslims, as clearly spelled out in the Koran:

1) Convert to Islam, accepting Allah as your one God, and believing that Mohammed was his messenger, and that the Koran contains the direct pure unadulterated word of Allah, which contains instructions for humankind, good for all time

OR

2) Submit to Islamic rule, be willingly subjugated by Muslims, and pay the jizya, or non-Muslim poll tax

OR

3) be killed.

Those are precisely your three choices in how you may cooperate with "fundamentalist" Muslims. Choose wisely, O infidel!

[lehighguy]

Perhaps, but I don't think in the next 1,000 years. And we would still need enemies, god help the first aliens we meet.

[Olof]

[ QUOTE ]

European debate has gradually moved from "should we cooperate or try to crush our opponents" to "how do we cooperate". This last referendums were about the latter. I am yet to see any Republican ask in this forum "how do we cooperate with fundamental moslems".


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if only Churchill would have chosen to cooperate with the nazis instead of attempting to crush them, then Europe would have been united a lot earlier, and we would all be speaking German.

If islamists were rational people whom you could be reason with, they never would have become fundamentalist muslims in the first place.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
European debate has gradually moved from "should we cooperate or try to crush our opponents" to "how do we cooperate". This last referendums were about the latter. I am yet to see any Republican ask in this forum "how do we cooperate with fundamental moslems".

[/ QUOTE ]

There are three ways you can cooperate with "fundamentalist" Muslims, as clearly spelled out in the Koran:

1) Convert to Islam, accepting Allah as your one God, and believing that Mohammed was his messenger, and that the Koran contains the direct pure unadulterated word of Allah, which contains instructions for humankind, good for all time

OR

2) Submit to Islamic rule, be willingly subjugated by Muslims, and pay the jizya, or non-Muslim poll tax

OR

3) be killed.

Those are precisely your three choices in how you may cooperate with "fundamentalist" Muslims. Choose wisely, O infidel!

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/wink.gif It is not easy, I agree. I speak once in a while with fundamental moslems though since there are quite a few living in my neighbourhood, so you exaggerate a bit:

1) Even the extreme ones does not demand that everyone should convert to Islam. Not even OBL. They have some [censored]-up theories about Saudi Arabia, that no non-moslems should be allowed to be there.

2)This is also an internal Moslem thing. I.e. in Iran if you proove that you are non-Moslem (i.e. of Armenian origin) you don't have to follow Islamic law. Have not heard anyone here either demand that from Christians (they buy meat from butchers that also butcher pigs for christ's sake but mock other moslems that eat pig meat).

3) Yet to witness any such killing take place here at least.

Quote from a terrorist (according to Colin Powell) living here to underline this:

"The controversial mullah, who is currently fighting an deportation order in Norway, writes effusively about his new homeland, telling immigrant readers living here that it is a Muslim duty to maintain the laws of their new home.

Krekar thanks Norway for its protection and patience and says that Muslims gaining residency in Norway and other western nations have a holy duty to observe the laws and rules that apply there."

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

European debate has gradually moved from "should we cooperate or try to crush our opponents" to "how do we cooperate". This last referendums were about the latter. I am yet to see any Republican ask in this forum "how do we cooperate with fundamental moslems".


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if only Churchill would have chosen to cooperate with the nazis instead of attempting to crush them, then Europe would have been united a lot earlier, and we would all be speaking German.

If islamists were rational people whom you could be reason with, they never would have become fundamentalist muslims in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with D-day. I don't disagree either with bombing Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. I try to point out that their should be a dialogue with fundamental moslems, not terrorist moslems.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not exaggerating although not all Muslims demand that which was stated. The Koran however DOES demand it. And some extreme Muslims do too.

I saw an interview, on PBS I believe it was, with various Muslims--from moderates to hard-liners. And a hard-line one did indeed say that he believed the Koran literally and that he should, in the eyes of Allah, ask someone if they convert to Islam, and if not, put the sword to their neck and kill them. Point blank period. And he was very serious.

There are also imams who preach this sort of thing. The one-eyed guy in London is on record as saying it is quite OK to kill non-Muslims, because they are kafir (that is, like cattle).

So I am not exaggerating: it's exactly what the Koran says, and what some extreme Muslims believe and take to heart. Just not all Muslims.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't disagree with D-day. I don't disagree either with bombing Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. I try to point out that their should be a dialogue with fundamental moslems, not terrorist moslems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I too think there should be a dialogue with fundamentalist Muslims. We should tell them that their notion that Islam should get preferential treatment is a load of hogwash.

[ACPlayer]

I am glad you agree that it would be preferable to have a dialog with them. Acknowledging hubris on both sides could well be a starting point.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

If you use the Qu'ran against moslems, how could you vote for a Christian as president??? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Dig up some bible quotes, Cyrus! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If you use the Qu'ran against moslems, how could you vote for a Christian as president???

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not using the Koran against anyone--I'm telling you what it says, and what true fundamentalist Muslims believe, if they believe the Koran.

Also, what makes you think I voted for a Christian for President? I voted for Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, and I think he declined to state his religious preferences publicly, saying an election should be about other things than religion.

[ QUOTE ]
Dig up some bible quotes, Cyrus!

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible does not lay out three choices for non-believers, as does the Koran: conversion, or submission/subjugation/paying a special tax, or being killed.

It ISN'T all parallel or mirror image--far from it.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Ok, I judged you too early /images/graemlins/blush.gif.

I think the majority of fundamental moslems though only expect fellow moslems to follow these rules. Again Iran is a good example, the revolutionary council have decided that if you are Moslem and drink alcohol you can be whipped but if you are Christian you are allowed to produce your own alcohol.

[natedogg]

A one world government is the worst of all possible political options. The absolute worst. One of the few things I'd be willing to fight a war for is to stop a world government from forming.

natedogg

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the majority of fundamental moslems though only expect fellow moslems to follow these rules. Again Iran is a good example, the revolutionary council have decided that if you are Moslem and drink alcohol you can be whipped but if you are Christian you are allowed to produce your own alcohol.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a relatively minor example.

More important examples would be:

Iran:

(excerpt)"If a non-Muslim kills another non-Muslim, qisas applies. However, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, the law does not require qisas, and does not specify a punishment. Article 2 of the penal code makes clear that the existence of a specified punishment denotes the existence of an offense. Therefore, in the absence of a specified punishment in this instance, the judge may even rule that no offense has taken place in the willful killing of a non-Muslim by a Muslim. Therefore, the penal law applies less value to the life of a non-Muslim as compared to a Muslim and may even permit the murder with impunity of non-Muslims by Muslims.

Other lesser offenses also provide for differential sentences between Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, Article 88 of the penal code states that if a Muslim man commits adultery with a Muslim woman, the penalty is 100 lashes for the man. However, if a non-Muslim man commits adultery with a Muslim woman, his penalty is death. No penalty is specified for the Muslim man who commits adultery with a non-Muslim, woman. Similarly with homosexuality, under Article 121 of the penal code, non-penetrative sex between two Muslim men is punished by 100 lashes. However, if one of the partners is non-Muslim, the penalty for him is death. The crime of malicious accusation is punished, according to Article 147 of the penal code, by eighty lashes if the victim is a Muslim. However, if the victim is non-Muslim, the maximum penalty is set at seventy-four lashes. In this article, non-Muslims are equated in their treatment with minors and those lacking their full mental capacities. Article 494 of the Penal Code provides penalties for violating the corpse of a Muslim; no penalties are stipulated for violating the corpse of a non-Muslim."(end excerpt)

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/iran/Iran-04.htm

Saudi Arabia:

It is illegal to proselytize a Muslim to join another faith, and that can be a capital offense, although there have been no known recent executions for this crime

It is illegal to publicly practice a religion other than Islam

It is illegal to distribute Bibles

All citizens must be Muslims

All persons must carry a government-issued identity card which is marked either "Muslim" or "Non-Muslim"

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
A one world government is the worst of all possible political options. The absolute worst. One of the few things I'd be willing to fight a war for is to stop a world government from forming.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sign me up natedogg. I like as local a government as possible. If I don't like my local government, I can move to a different city or county. If I don't like my State gov, then I can move to a difference state. If I don't like the fed government, I have the option of leaving the country. With a one-world gov, I'm out of options. Not quite sure why people think this would be a good idea. It seems amazingly dangerous to me.

[MMMMMM]

It is an amazingly dangerous idea. And the bureaucracy would be overwhelming too.

[ACPlayer]

Very dangerous idea.

Your random walk through paragraph construction and idea presentation has found a truth /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DBowling]

[ QUOTE ]
A one world government is the worst of all possible political options. The absolute worst. One of the few things I'd be willing to fight a war for is to stop a world government from forming.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

why?

[DBowling]

[ QUOTE ]
Sign me up natedogg. I like as local a government as possible. If I don't like my local government, I can move to a different city or county. If I don't like my State gov, then I can move to a difference state. If I don't like the fed government, I have the option of leaving the country. With a one-world gov, I'm out of options. Not quite sure why people think this would be a good idea. It seems amazingly dangerous to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying, however, local govts would still (likely) exist as they do today.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
You might be correct, but I think people who favor some form of one-world government should be upfront about it, like you are

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say that I was in favour of it? All I pointed out was that objectively the trend is towards larger and larger political and cultural units (In geogrpahic terms) and that the birth of modern communications/travel will only speed up this process.

At some point in history the idea and concept of nationality will likely no longer exist. Natonality is just an ideality of the human mind it has no independent existence.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
A one world government is the worst of all possible political options. The absolute worst. One of the few things I'd be willing to fight a war for is to stop a world government from forming.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it it was a hands off low taxation world government.
Why assume this government will be organised along lines you disagree with?

By the time a world government happens the word government will likely mean something different to what it means now. Our social and economic processes will have hopefully evolved to full effeciency by then.