World Government

[Hynde]

...how why I waiste....

dumbest forums on a very dumb Internet?

[Rainbow Moonlight]

I don't know if I am in favour of world government. I don't like too much centralisation of control and uniformity. And it would also be very difficult to elect one democratically from all the countries in the world. I like the idea of something like the United Nations but with more commitment from member nations and more teeth in the form of what is given in terms of power by member nations.

People in favour of it only see the increased opportunity for controlling global problems etc, they tend not to see the increased opportunity for controlling individuals, countries, regions, and towns and free choice and difference.

A single world government rather than a coalition of cooperative nations has power which is much more open to abuse.

[helian]

World government is about as realistic now as a future in a 60's science fiction movie/TV series where we're all wearing the same clothes, (diversity in fashion and taste having been eliminated by futuristic enlightenment, it seems). The UN is a "shining" example of why it can't work (or at least it's hard to see how it could work). The UN was in a way designed to be weak by giving veto powers to the victors in WW2, to avoid a walkout by powerful nations. The result is a world body that either cannot make a resolution or cannot enforce them on 80% to 90% of proposals put to the table. Powerful nations will always act in their own interests, that is a brute fact and if it is in the interests of powerful nations (or their strategic allies) for a resolution not to be made or if made, then not enforcible, then that is what will happen. Why have the Kurds not been given a homeland, for example? No world government idea is going to change the local facts on the ground nor eliminate the parochial interests of powerful nations, not in the foreseeable future, anyway.

However, if you want to see it operating in an imaginary world... well there are plenty of sci-fi films replete with planetary and interplanetary governments.

[JW Frogen]

Interesting post.

Previous posts of mine concur.

The Kurd example is of interest; in most respects they are already autonomous, (which is why the insurgency has never really taken off there, they are wildly pro American.)

Certainly if any people have earned their freedom and shown the rest of Iraq how responsible democracy works, it is the Kurds.

But America did not want to set a Balkans chain reaction off in Iraq, (which is ironically the insurgent strategy), when both America and the EU recognized the ceding Balkan states and set off half a decade of ethnic conflict.

And of course there is NATO member Turkey, who is opposed to a Kurdish state.

I for one think Turkey is making a mistake here, if they would allow a Kurdish state they could then tell their own discontented Kurdish population “you have a homeland, it is over there.”


Still, given the success of the Surge (Patreaus will apparently report almost all the benchmarks are being met, and Al Qeada in Iraqis now seriously crippled) a unified Iraqi democracy seems likely to succeed, (even Obama is starting to backtrack on his 16 month withdrawal promise) and so the Kurds will have to be content with a federalized Kurdish state in a unified Iraq.

[helian]

Interesting post.

Previous posts of mine concur.

The Kurd example is of interest; in most respects they are already autonomous, (which is why the insurgency has never really taken off there, they are wildly pro American.)

Certainly if any people have earned their freedom and shown the rest of Iraq how responsible democracy works, it is the Kurds.

But America did not want to set a Balkans chain reaction off in Iraq, (which is ironically the insurgent strategy), when both America and the EU recognized the ceding Balkan states and set off half a decade of ethnic conflict.

And of course there is NATO member Turkey, who is opposed to a Kurdish state.

I for one think Turkey is making a mistake here, if they would allow a Kurdish state they could then tell their own discontented Kurdish population “you have a homeland, it is over there.”


Still, given the success of the Surge (Patreaus will apparently report almost all the benchmarks are being met, and Al Qeada in Iraqis now seriously crippled) a unified Iraqi democracy seems likely to succeed, (even Obama is starting to backtrack on his 16 month withdrawal promise) and so the Kurds will have to be content with a federalized Kurdish state in a unified Iraq.

Apparently the joke around Washington is that it took Bush longer to find the right General in Patreaus than it took Lincoln to find Grant!

Turkey, Iraq and Iran are all opposed to a Kurdish state. All fear that the establishment of a Kurdistan will embolden other minorities within these nations to demand the same... never mind significant loss of territory from all three to constitute Kurdistan.

[JW Frogen]

It is not even a joke.

I was calling for a surge in troop numbers in late 2003, (and I was not an officer, but I do understand war), more importantly so does Mac.

It was not a joke; it was a tragedy, for America, for the Iraqi people, that Bush was so loyal to Rumsfeld.

Still, to Bush’s credit, he did not give up, as EVERY Democrat would have done, except Lieberman, who is no longer a Democrat.


As for Kurds, as I see it, it is bad to forment Kurdish indpenendence in Turkey, not so bad in Iran.

I am a Roman kinda guy.

[helian]

It was not a joke; it was a tragedy, for America, for the Iraqi people, that Bush was so loyal to Rumsfeld.

Still, to Bush’s credit, he did not give up, as EVERY Democrat would have done, except Lieberman, who is no longer a Democrat.

I wouldn't sing Bush's praises too highly. It's a direct reflection on the incompetency of Bush that he chose the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Libby (all of whom left under a cloud). This man, George W Bush, does not have the intellectual capacity to properly deal with a crisis as enormous as 9/11 or prosecute a war the likes of Iraq (which of course should never have happened). However, sometimes cometh the hour and we're stuck with the man. What a pity the US political system doesn't allow for the removal of a President as easily as the Westminster system can remove a Prime Minister.

[JW Frogen]

Except almost every other political leader in America other than Mac and Bush would have long ago fled Iraq, creating a strategic regional disaster and an Al Qeada propaganda victory that would have taken a generation to beat back.

Bush fucked up the occupation (unlike Mac who had the right strategy from day one) but he did have the courage, unlike almost every other US politician to stick it out, and finally change to a strategy that is brining almost complete victory.

Lincoln had no military serious military success until mid his second term.

History is kind to those who stick things out and prevail when everyone else is crying like babies “woe is me.”

[gadgetron]

[What a pity the US political system doesn't allow for the removal of a President as easily as the Westminster system can remove a Prime Minister.

I bet you wont say that when Rudd hopps into Iran.

Nor will anyone howl too much at the US election, if the Left and Al Qaeda have their way. Some 4th July celebration. And who in afganland will howl then?

Many I expect.

This is my signature