|
| Thread: War in Georgia |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV |
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
posted September 04, 2008 12:08 PM |
|
|
@ Hell Wizard:
TA and I posted some links as well:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9907
Things you wouldn't see on American Media 
And I don't think there would be peace in a one-world-government. Wether it's called police or military makes no difference.
____________
|
|
Hell_Wizard
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2008 05:17 PM |
|
|
If we "convince" the others to listen to the law (Just like in China), It will be possible. Well, if the Cold War continues, Only China will remain, so it is possible.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2008 10:52 PM |
|
|
Moonlith:
Quote:
It is interesting to note the further a government stands from its civilians, the better it is for the big corporations' welfare
Not necessarily. The more people a government governs, the ,more people there are to watch and limit it. And a minimal government couldn't have corporate welfare, since its activities would be limited to education, roads, and protection.
Quote:
Ever read Orwell's 1984?
I'm talking about one world government, not a 1/3 world crazy authoritarian government.
Quote:
One-world-government is an abominal idea pushed forward by making stupid people think we can't get along
Let's see... how many wars have there been?
Quote:
And to me it seems more likely it was America & CO who planned to provocate Russia: That anti-missle shield that was planned in Poland has been pushed through since Russie showed unprovoked agression (according to western media). Moreover I read some more about important pipelines running near the area; which isn't very surprising considering we are living in an age where natural energy sources are being rapidly depleted and becoming more and more valuable strategic targets.
Why would America be as stupid as to do that? It would have been in America's best interests to preserve the status quo, not to make an American ally lose.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted September 05, 2008 12:34 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 00:35, 05 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
Moonlith:
Quote:
It is interesting to note the further a government stands from its civilians, the better it is for the big corporations' welfare
Not necessarily. The more people a government governs, the ,more people there are to watch and limit it. And a minimal government couldn't have corporate welfare, since its activities would be limited to education, roads, and protection.
Not really. The further away a government is, the less power and control you have over it. On a basic scale, imagine your amount of power and influence when you are dealing with a village government, a city government, a province government, etc. It reduces gradually. Moreover, it becomes less personal: you become a number more than a human.
Quote:
Quote:
Ever read Orwell's 1984?
I'm talking about one world government, not a 1/3 world crazy authoritarian government.
What's the difference?
Quote:
Quote:
One-world-government is an abominal idea pushed forward by making stupid people think we can't get along
Let's see... how many wars have there been?
Well, since World War 2, none here in Europe - Education, Welfare and Welbeing no doubt play a part in it  The only reason to wage war for a prosperous country remains Religion. And a one-world government doesn't eradicate religion (unfortunately).
In fact, there is a good chance most of the late wars (including WW and WW2) have been deliberately escalated for the sake of profit for a select group, including bankers and weaponry producers. It's a fact money buys power.
Quote:
Quote:
And to me it seems more likely it was America & CO who planned to provocate Russia: That anti-missle shield that was planned in Poland has been pushed through since Russie showed unprovoked agression (according to western media). Moreover I read some more about important pipelines running near the area; which isn't very surprising considering we are living in an age where natural energy sources are being rapidly depleted and becoming more and more valuable strategic targets.
Why would America be as stupid as to do that? It would have been in America's best interests to preserve the status quo, not to make an American ally lose.
It's not about victory over a country. I believe the ones that made this happen do not care about which country "wins" or "loses" simply because the ones responsible do not have a loyalty to a single country. It's about money and power, and nothing more.
Understand that the ones who have the power do not care about America's interests, only their own.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2008 01:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The further away a government is, the less power and control you have over it. On a basic scale, imagine your amount of power and influence when you are dealing with a village government, a city government, a province government, etc.
True, the individual's influence decreases. On the other hand, let's say that a given government governs over 1000 people. 10 of those people are interested in watching the government and trying to keep it accountable. If it does something they don't like, then they'd try to do something about it. But what can 10 people do? If they protest, they are merely seen as 10 troublemakers. Now take the same situation, but multiply both numbers by 10 - the government governs 10,000 people, and there are 100 watchdogs. A hundred people protesting would certainly draw more attention than 10.
Quote:
What's the difference?
It's not like a government can fight another government if there's no other government to fight.
Quote:
Well, since World War 2, none here in Europe - Education, Welfare and Welbeing no doubt play a part in it
And economic intergration, and the EU (supranational government). But people like Le Pen and organizations like the BNP still have a following...
Quote:
I believe the ones that made this happen do not care about which country "wins" or "loses" simply because the ones responsible do not have a loyalty to a single country. It's about money and power, and nothing more.
Besides Russia, who benefits? This had a real risk of making oil prices go up - but the oil executives wouldn't be the ones benefitting. It'd be Russia.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted September 05, 2008 01:30 AM |
|
|
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9907
It seems to fit in with the general idea that the USA tries to gain a solid foothold in areas with oil reserves. Including that pipeline they built through Afghanistan and has been made possible ever since NATO sent troops to fight the Taliban under the pretense of "War on terror". Interestingly enough, under the Taliban rule, no opium was being created Now that the Taliban is being driven out, that production is back on track. Guess where it is going?
____________
|
| |
|
|
