[Re@dy_2_Ki!l]

That's a nice dream. Why don't we have Iran kill off Israel, USA, and Britain, and then maybe let Pakistan destroy India, while Bush wars North Korea, China, and Venezuela simultaneouly. And Africa can infect everyone with HIV. After we're all dead, we can have one nice happy worldwide country.

Country of origin?

1. A world government doesn't 'originate' anywhere, it is a world movement.

What I am meaning is, everyone has been brought up somewhere, the "World Government" hasn't been around therefore people HAVE come from countries that existed before, hence why in a World Government they would support their country of origin. My example of the testing of Nuclear weaponry was an example of countries and issues, not to be exact.. but to get a point accross.. obviously you can't read. And if the world was one country.. you know what would happen, there would be states formed... and the same people are going to be in the one state(like all arabs will occupy one area for example).. and their will be conflict for land and yada yada yada.. a world war would break out..

In my opinion, Israel shouldn't be there. There are plenty of other places to build a Jewish state, plenty of places where Jewish-friendly people live. Putting Israel in surronded by Arab countries was a bad idea, whether there is some historical significance of that place or not.

Well that's got to be the most stupiedest idea I've ever heard of... here's a quote from Wikipedia

The people of modern day Israel share the same language and culture shaped by the Jewish heritage and religion passed through generations starting with the founding father Abraham (ca. 1800 BCE). Thus, Jews have had continuous presence in the land of Israel for the past 3,300 years.

Now lets' think, hey because we've been here for 3,300 years, but we're surrounded by enemy nations, lets move.. to a more.. safer spot. Israel can defend for itself, and has been doing so for many years.

I'd also like to remind you that Hezbollah is a democratic political party formed after Israelis invaded Lebanon, and it also funds many schools and hospitals throughout Lebanon. Don't believe all you hear from the media

Oh really.. that's nice

following the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and killing of three others in a cross-border raid into northern Israel (referring to hezbollah)

Democratic political party... yess... did u read how they're launching rockets in built up residential areas, so that Israel's will have to bomb on Labannon citizens to get the Hezbollah... and they are setting up their rockets in a mainly christian area, funny that, since Christians aren't though of highly in those Arab nations. There is tact in their crazyness.. it aint all Israels fault etc etc.

But anyway back to the 'so called debate' is it me or are you Nuu the only one for this World Governement? And you haven't answered the main question in this debate... "How is everyone going to get along"...you can't just expect people to get along in a "world" environment... for starters.. i doubt any country would want to give up it's independence.. and belong to a bunch of other nations, some which they might hate. Look at the "bigger picture" and not the "bigger dream" because it simply will never happen...

[Nuu™™]

The idea of the world having one governing body is not that bad. The major reason why I am opposed to a world government is because no one has any idea how long the world could maintain that government. I mean if another country rebels against the government and declares themselves an idependent state. How would someone go about dealing with the rebel state?

I really dont think that the world could from a world government. Reaons being that there are so many political hotspots that I have no idea how people would go about. I am very tired and will edit this post later on.

That could be a problem, although more for the rebel state than for the World Goverment. The rebel state would effectively cut itself off from the rest of civilisation, unless the World Government would consent to trade with it, which, obviously, it wouldn't. If the rebel state declared war, it would simply be crushed. So unless the state wanted to commit suicide, that or become a very backward and poverty stricken place, it would stay loyal to the World Government.

By the way, because a lot of you seem to be confused, what I am suggesting is not a UN, or a union of nations, but more of a single, universal nation. That might clear up a lot of those problems.

That's a nice dream. Why don't we have Iran kill off Israel, USA, and Britain, and then maybe let Pakistan destroy India, while Bush wars North Korea, China, and Venezuela simultaneouly. And Africa can infect everyone with HIV. After we're all dead, we can have one nice happy worldwide country.

And that isn't going to happen anyway? Obviously it would be capable of quarantining Africa, and with the increased, global funding, it might be able to find a cure. Also, the mediation of the World Government would be able to lessen the conflict, a bit like the UN Peacekeeping efforts.

I guess a world government could exist, but the current international hatred would still exist in some way. :/ The government would have a hard time trying to keep all these groups from attacking each other. I personally see problems putting Neo-Nazis, Israel, Hezbollah, the Janjaweed, blacks, Communists, etc under the same roof.

As I have already stated numerous times, those sort of people can be found in any country. I'd also like to remind you that Hezbollah is a democratic political party formed after Israelis invaded Lebanon, and it also funds many schools and hospitals throughout Lebanon. Don't believe all you hear from the media.

My point is quite simple, really. Let's use the United States as an example. The US has roughly 300,000,000 citizens. It has one main federal body. Okay now my question is: Does this government really have a good control of these people? Well, let's see... Gangs, militas, several mobs, and, of course, "normal" crime. The US government has some control, but still relies on the people, who, like it or not, aren't exactly friends with each other.

Now the planet Earth has 6,500,000,000 people. That's about 22 times more people. Try to control all those people with the same government.

Well obviously there would be the same police/public ratio, I'm not suggesting to get the American government and put them in control of the entire world. And, to tell you the truth, America doesn't come across as being a very violent place, or it could be if they illegalised handguns and most other guns too, like the laws we have in Australia. And if you really want to control the people, there are other governmental systems which do this more effectively.

Eh, why do I bother? You'll just say the government could be better run or something just as vague and avoid saying how. Unless you figure out a way to brainwash billions of people without spending a huge amount of money to spread it. Or spied on everyone and killed any rebel of any kind before they could tell their message.

I would never do that! Well, if you want something different, I'll give you this link.

*ignores the chap that posted before me*

[ticktockclok]

The idea of the world having one governing body is not that bad. The major reason why I am opposed to a world government is because no one has any idea how long the world could maintain that government. I mean if another country rebels against the government and declares themselves an idependent state. How would someone go about dealing with the rebel state?

I really dont think that the world could from a world government. Reaons being that there are so many political hotspots that I have no idea how people would go about. I am very tired and will edit this post later on.

That could be a problem, although more for the rebel state than for the World Goverment. The rebel state would effectively cut itself off from the rest of civilisation, unless the World Government would consent to trade with it, which, obviously, it wouldn't. If the rebel state declared war, it would simply be crushed. So unless the state wanted to commit suicide, that or become a very backward and poverty stricken place, it would stay loyal to the World Government.

By the way, because a lot of you seem to be confused, what I am suggesting is not a UN, or a union of nations, but more of a single, universal nation. That might clear up a lot of those problems.

That's a nice dream. Why don't we have Iran kill off Israel, USA, and Britain, and then maybe let Pakistan destroy India, while Bush wars North Korea, China, and Venezuela simultaneously. And Africa can infect everyone with HIV. After we're all dead, we can have one nice happy worldwide country.

And that isn't going to happen anyway? Obviously it would be capable of quarantining Africa, and with the increased, global funding, it might be able to find a cure. Also, the mediation of the World Government would be able to lessen the conflict, a bit like the UN Peacekeeping efforts.

Oh, boy, that last sentence was funny. Tell me now, how much have the 'UN Peacekeeping efforts' lessened the conflict between Hezbollah/Lebanon and Israel? A world government will never be able to command any power because there will be an eternal civil war. Some countries will just never unite into one, and even best friends would not! There isn't a single person with any authority in Syria and Iran, who are tight friends with the common wish to wipe Israel off the planet, who would want to merge into one. Smaller is better. Look at Russia. They started as massive Russia, then the USSR, then modern day Russia. Becoming smaller each time.

By the way, HIV is a virus. Viruses mutate so quickly that your best hope is treating them. I really doubt there is one strain of HIV, and think our best hope for fighting AIDS is finding some a common cure for all diseases. Something like finding 'God' in flesh and bone, or making alien contact and getting them to cure all our problems. Basically, something completely out of our reach or impossible because the possiblity doesn't exist.

[Zziggywolf5]

Heh, the UN is useless in war conflicts...
UN: "Would you stop?"
Nation: "No."
Other Nation: "Never."
UN: "Please?"
Nation: "NO!"
Other Nation: "NEVA!"


Hm. HIV. There are several problems that hampers cure research. 1: Being a virus, most of our 'cure-alls' are worthless because they fight bacteria. 2: When you get infected with a 'normal' virus, your immune system usually fights it off. Because HIV attacks and weakens your immune system, your body can't fight any infection, let alone HIV itself. 3: The above also means HIV vaccinations are not possible. 4: The most important problem, however, is how low HIV is on the priority scale. Wars, genocide, crime, Tom Cruise's baby; they all are deemed 'more important' by the public and government.

And I'll read that Wikipedia article later.

[Nuu™™]

A big problem with the UN, is they have no power. The goverments of Turkey and the US might reconsider if they get sacked for disobeying the UN/World Government.

If the UN had the power to sack people, then it would be more like this:

UN: "Would you stop?"
Nation: "Of course, master. *grovel grovel*"
Other Nation: "Okay. *whimper*"

And I would like to remind you that smallpox is, or WAS, also a virus.

No! Read it now! Or at least skim it!

[Neraphym]

Bacteria is killed by antibiotics, viruses are killed by vaccinations. Vaccinations work by injecting you will weak or dead virus 'cells' (dunno what to call them... they aren't cells, though). You immune system adapts to these 'cells', and learns how to kill them. That way, when the real guys come, your body knows how to kill them. HIV directly attacks that which your body uses to learn and fight off viruses, thus rendering you vulnerable for another infection to kill you. AIDS has never killed a single person.

And the UN is a laughable. z0mg, it's a resolution!!! we are d00med!

[Zziggywolf5]

Yeah, HIV doesn't actually kill you, it allows other diseases to kill you. I personally can't imagine dying from the flu.

Heh, I'm not even supposed to be online right now. I doubt I have time to read that looong article before my mom notices my homework's not done, if she hasn't already...

One thing I want to through out first is the whole-UN-has-some-actual-power thing. In order to do that, the UN would have to have a military of its own; but because the UN is a council of other nations, who would control said military? If the UN took a vote whenever someone felt the international army needed to be sent out, it would probably take months to get an answer. Plus, whose people work for this 'international' military? Americans? French? Chinese? Russian? A combaination who will work together despite different national allegiances?

[ticktockclok]

I think it would be tough for the UN to have any military, because the troops could not have any national allegiance. So, they would either have to design some way to make sure the only allegiance the troops have is to the UN, or they would have to raise them from birth. They could have no nationality, no citizenship, but just UN.

[Nuu™™]

I do believe the way it works now for civilian UN workers is they are still citizens of their country, and if they are from the country UN peacekeeping is in, they will most likely choose to work for their organisation. I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, because I am not really sure what happens, but couldn't they always just exclude the people from that nation if the army was working there?