One world govt.

[bigblackbravo]

Does anyone belive there could ever be a one world govt? My dad believes so and is somewhat comparing what happened in the Civil War with the situation now and what may happen in the future. Im telling him it will never happen because of differences and the exploiting of third world countries. He says well the south never thought of a central federal govt. and look what happend. And they seem to be gettin along with the "yankees"(my dad, a virginia man), so he doesnt see why that cant happen with us and the middle east and the far east. Of course he belives in the fact that the cause of the civil war was over states rights. I say no, but thats another story. I say well it took a five year war to solve that problem (1860-65)and itll probably take another one to solve this one. And another civil war except GLOBAL would only devastate this world to the point, that it wont know the meaning of devastation. please, please give me your info....

[HARDCORE]

Kiddo -

I have to go along with your dad on this one! Is not, in effect, the United Nations a step in the direction of a "One World Government", and how about the European Commonwealth, and for that matter, the old League of Nations!

The logic (I believe), was to get the world to talks instead of shoot! Unfortunately, the rationale behind this notion has been continually tested and strained since the end of "World War Two" in such places as Korea, Indo-China, Vietnam, Somalia, and yes, the Middle East (Twice), just to mention a few!

If you add to this the new "Tepid War of Internationalism" (globalization), even though the initial menu may have been noble indeed, the finished meal usually (not always) remains the same - that being, to accomplish by wheeling and dealing ($$), what had rarely (or lastingly) been done through force of arms!

Take a look while you are at it at the "World Court" and the recent attempt of Belgium to insert their "Wanna-Be Authority" over the two (plus) century old mandates of our Founding Fathers! Now add to this, the recent actions (or lack of) of Germany, Russia, Canada, Mexico etc., and what do you think this could eventually lead to?

Either we (USA and our "TRUE" Allies) leads by example, or we become willingly absorbed by a decrepit international system that has great difficulty in even handling its own affairs! And would not (in a way), a "Civil War" of sorts also exist (on a world-wide scale) if all were indeed absorbed into but a single matrix, and a portions of that matrix eventually rebelled against the whole? This would of course be (at least in my opinion) an inevitability, should another situation similar to what recently happened in Gulf War II (ally-wise) occur in the future?

"Had it not been for our (United States and the Coalition of the Willing) defiance against certain vested (UN) powers recently, our sovereignty (in my opinion), would have most assuredly been eroded!

Of course, we have engaged in a wee bit of this agenda ourselves in the last half century or so (another opinion), not with the same motivation mind you, but then a rose is a rose, is it not?

---------------------------------------------------------

As for the Civil War, or the War Between the States if you prefer, , and it's not a generational thing, I have to again agree with your wise old dad! It is my opinion too that the Civil War was fought over State's Rights, slavery being but one issue that prompted this tragic event of American history! (Four horrendous years that defined our existence!)

Did not the South fire the first shot in that conflict, a guy by the name of Edmund Ruffin (it is said), under the command of PGT Beuregard? (Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina)? And had slavery alone been the paramount issue that prompted this conflict, is it not logical to assume that the North would have let lose with the first salvo, and not the South?

It is my opinion that the agrarian life style of the south and the factory agenda of the North were at loggerheads from "Square One" (two separate worlds, so to speak), and as such, this Civil War could have begun years earlier! "And for the record, the conditions in northern factories were themselves atrocious, and indeed slavery by any other name!"

As for certain foreign entities, a few still hold vested designs on America's future, just as they did half way into the nineteenth century. Now however, the instrument of control appears to be a weakening United Nations and greed $$ (Just another opinion)! Ergo, the international alliances that formed with the Union or the Confederacy, just prior to (and into) the Civil War (a war that pitted brother against brother), were indeed monetary and power centered in nature. And many of those nations that rhetorically or substantially involved themselves in that "Civil Conflict", did (or had) in the past, also engaged in the practice of Slavery - "SOME STILL DO, in one form or another!"

Was not a great fear of the "Old Rail Splitter" (Lincoln), during the Civil War, an invasion by a foreign entity from the north (Canada) - "And this by a now staunch ally?"

Ah, but then these are subjects to debate on another day!

"Welcome aboard youngster!" Your wisdom is indeed beyond your years! Your father has to be really proud of you!!

VERITAS (Truth)

[Keith_Hixson]

It could easily become a one world government.

Fortunately, the UN has become a disfunctional joke.
But if a strong charismatic leader emerged from the UN and got support from the majority of the World. Boy, it could happen very quickly. Socialistic ideals feel that sharing equally the wealth of the World with all nations is only fair. If the right people got into the offices and a world wide crisis was avoided, it could happen. The nations of Western Europe somewhat have a single government at the present time.

I don't see it in the immediate future but possible.

Keith

[bigblackbravo]

Hardcore, your too nice, thanks for your input and of course i never seem to have a valid point! but i guess im stubborn in the fact that i still believe it was over slavery but im not denying states rights could have been a cause as well, and im sure too many of the boys fighting it was. i watched the movie Gettysburg and there was a scene that showed some Confederate prisoners, bening qustioned by a Union Major. he asked them what they were fighting for and they said their "rats". he didnt have a clue what they were saying and they asked him the same and he said to free slaves, and the prisoners said they could care less about blacks or anyone else. they didnt belive some yankee govt should be telling them what to do. that showed me what four young Confederate soldiers were fighting for. of course that want all of them. i guess we cant really debate on what was the cause of the civil war. becuase every southern man had their cuase and their view of what they were fighting for. all we know is that they were devoted and were willing to die. that proves everything. by the way im 14 and live in California. thanks hardcore and anyone else who takes the time to reply to a rebellious teenager. take care.

[HARDCORE]

KIddo-

There ain't a damned thing wrong with rebellious youth! We all went that route once, even your dad, although he may not admit it! As a matter of fact, I raised three opinionated kids of my own!

Again, the majority of Southerners did not possess slaves, just as most people in the United States today are not privy to the golden spoon!

Again, as concerns rebellion, always keep in mind the words of Thomas Jefferson, or Sean Connery (Hunt For Red October) if you prefer:

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical!"

Keep your mind working, listen to your father, and above all, question that which you do not understand or agree with!

And to put it as my wife's Southern kin would - "Always fight for your Rats!"

VERITAS

Believe Hardcore pretty much hit the nail square on the head but I recon I'll jump in with my two-cents worth anyway.

One world government is posible but nobody but the dictator,king,or whatever would be much interested in living under it.Remember that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Far as the "Civil"(don't try to sell that to anybody in Atlanta!)War goes,it should be noted that Southerners believed that since the states had formed the Union voluntarily that they had the right to change their mind and withdraw from that union at will.They had done so and were in the process of setting up their own country when the war broke out.Union troops were occupying SC territory and refused to leave after being asked nicely and repeatedly.The South did NOT concider itself in rebellion.Southerners fought because they believed their nation had been invaded (and/or occupied)by a foreign power.

Who said The War Between the States was over?We're just regrouping.Just goes to show how effective good propaganda can be.

[HARDCORE]

Doc.2/47

What more could I add Doc, save for "The South May Just Rise Again!"

In my several trips through Tennessee and the surrounding Dixie countryside, including a stint in Memphis, I genuinely enjoyed the rich heritage of the area! The Civil War (or is that - The War For Southern Independence) was, as I said, a defining period in American history.

And with my wife hailing from the Piedmont Area of North Carolina, to say any more just might get me killed!

As a matter of fact, I once read an article on an ancestor of my wife, one Captain Morgan CSA, a wagonmaster who use to run supplies between NC and SC back during the former unpleasantness!

As you may imagine, with me having a distant ancestor who fought with the Rhode Island boys at Vicksburg, and my wife of "Suthin Extraction", that war has (indeed) not ended (even 138 years later) in this household. I do, however, have to constantly remind her that even though she was born in Albermarle NC, two of our sons, born in Suthin California, south of Los Angeles, were born a tad further south than she! LOL

VERITAS

[Jerry D]

Here is a good point that I have heard all my life living in the South. North ,East, and West are directions but the South is a place and a way of life ... And One point on the Civil war the Federal Government was building up the industrial base in New England and needed capitol and the South being Big Agriculture was the cash cow they needed to tax to support the Industrial Build up and with tariff going up and up for the South. Louisiana decided that a way to get a tax break was to charge a Toll to anyone entering or leaving the Mississippi River Mouth. and Lincoln didn't want that.Because that would have affected Illinois his home state. But thats another story.Later

[sfc_darrel]

Britain rejects joining Euro for now

By DON MELVIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution


LONDON -- The pound sterling, Britain's coin of the realm for more than 1,000 years, will remain the national currency for at least another one or two.

In a mixed message, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, the country's finance minister, told parliament on Monday that the euro -- the single currency a dozen European nations use -- is a fine legal tender offering enormous benefits, but adopting it now might harm Britain's economy.

However, he said he would reassess the economic data next year and, if the results were different, the question of whether to discard the pound and adopt the euro could be put to voters in a referendum.

Brown presented members of parliament with the voluminous results of his research into the consequences of joining the euro zone. He praised the euro heartily but then said, in effect, no thanks. Not yet.

"Our view that membership in a successful single currency would be of benefit to the British people as well as to Europe is strengthened by our assessment," he said. "In short, if the economics are right, we should join."

But Brown had set up five tests that he said had to be met before Britain would join the euro community: that there be "sustainable convergence" between the economies of Britain and the euro zone; that Britain will still have sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change; and that the impact on investment, on jobs and on Britain's financial services industry would all be beneficial.

He said Monday that four of the five tests had not been met with certainty. Only the positive effect on the financial services industry was assured, he said.

The chancellor said that he would work to ensure that the five tests are met in the future. Brown also said the government would work to build a "pro-European consensus" in Britain.

[1IDVET]

by David T. Pyne

The term ?New World Order? has been used by totalitarian tyrants, from Hitler to Jiang Zemin, to describe a globalist utopian superstate in which all resistance to an all-powerful world government and those who control it has been essentially vanquished and war between competing states, which would be transformed into mere provinces of this world superstate has been abolished entirely. More recently, President George H.W. Bush used it during the Gulf War to describe a world led by the incipient world government known as the United Nations, which he sought to empower.

Today, there is a struggle being waged between two competing visions of a New World Order. The Eastern vision would consist of a world effectively dominated by the Sino-Russian axis of nations. The other is a one-world government dominated by the Western powers now being promoted by the Bush administration, which is staffed by hundreds of members of the one-world government promoting Council on Foreign Relations from the president?s top advisors on down. Both visions would establish a world government that would be largely socialist in nature. Both would involve the large-scale surrender of our constitutional freedoms and sovereignty to international institutions like the UN. However, these visions are more or less mutually exclusive.

The New World Order


Globalism Versus Globalization

By Joseph Nye | Monday, April 15, 2002

Globalism versus globalization? Many people would think the two terms refer to the same phenomenon. However, there are important differences between the two.

What is globalism?

Globalism, at its core, seeks to describe and explain nothing more than a world which is characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances. It attempts to understand all the inter-connections of the modern world ? and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them.

In contrast, globalization refers to the increase or decline in the degree of globalism. It focuses on the forces, the dynamism or speed of these changes.

The Globalist



Be afraid....be very, very afraid!