Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

Originally posted by nenothtu
Also, I'm against the NAFTA and CAFTA as well, because they are a step on the rad to globalization, which I am dead set against. I must admit to being at a loss to understand why you are against it, though, as it appears that you are all for globalization. That's what I take from your talk of a "global society" and a global government with more teeth than the UN. I assure you that I will not live to see that day nor will my son. We will, without doubt, be killed on the road to globalization - it just won't happen while we still draw breath.

I'm not talking about globalization, I'm talking about a universal world order.

Globalization is the term to describe global corporations (the direct result of American neo-liberal economic policies) and how they move from one third world country to another, exploiting their economies, workers and resources. This is imperialism, which in political science is known as the final known step of capitalism (also known as "finance capital", comes after "industrial capital").

Modern globalization is, in most cases, where American-based corporations have evolved in having the ability to spread out into the world. They have to do this because they've already exploited anything of value within the US. In fact, the only significant American industry left is the military industrial complex, hence why the US needs to conduct wars in order to survive.

As for the Canadian situation, NAFTA was designed by the globalist elite so the US can assume much more control over our national resources. Indeed, before Mulroney became PM during the 90s, we had done a good job nationalizing most of our country's markets and resources (because we were in serious crap before thanks to foreign ownership). Then Mulroney, who was an elite millionare businessman who was even a CEO of an American corporation, came into power, dismantled our nationalist policies, and forced the FTA into affect. The entire FTA policy was directed by Washington, and "advisors" to Mulroney specifically told him that the Canadian people would react harshly to any obvious assimilation attempts, so Mulroney's FTA campaign was filled with lies and empty promises designed to not invoke a general response among the Canadian people. However, nationalist activists understood what was going on and they lead their own anti-FTA campaign. Mulroney ending up screwing us all over in the end anyways.

But when I speak of globalization, I am talking about the American corporate elite. They are nothing but scum, and they also virtually run the US government now through extreme lobbying and corruption. This is also known as fascism, by the way.

Sure you did. In this post, with this direct quote:

"I am not one of the masses anymore. My professional life places me among the intellectuals "

That has nothing to do with the elite. Since when is it just "elite" and "masses" anyways? Maybe you should study political science.

Still not sure which wars you are saying Canada beat the US's asses in, even after all that.

I really don't feel like hitting the history books just to give you a lesson in the history of North America.

Still, I'm with you on the notion that Canadians have a duty to preserve Canada. It seems like your first job might be to get all the Canadians together and on the same page concerning what that "preservation" means and entails. I'm REALLY not sure how forfeiting Canadian sovereignty to a global organization would accomplish that.

Why the hell would I want ANY country to surrender their sovereignty to a global organization?

I think all countries should stick to their own business and build themselves up (nationalism). Then, as a species, we need to form a global organization to combine our efforts into furthering our species, such as space travel.

Globalization has absolutely nothing to do with global organization; globalization is just an economic term.

Which is why we're on opposite sides of the fence. I meant what I said, I'd hate to see a global ANYTHING, mine, yours, or "theirs". That "globalism" involves forfeiting national sovereignty, and giving control of YOU to others. Nationalization means nothing, nothing at all, if that nation forfeits it's sovereignty. In that case, "nationalization" just becomes a stepping stone to foreign domination, a counter-productive proposition.

What it amounts to is imperialism of an entirely different, far more far-reaching, sort.

You're intepretation most certainly does result in that.

However, I fail to see how a global organization has to impede on any nation's sovereignty. I simply believe in the opportunity for all nations and people to contribute their best potential to a global effort, WITHOUT direction from any one single element. This is the problem today, because the US government is obsessed with the assumption that the world sees the US as its leader, when the world sees the US as nothing more than a hostile detriment to global society.

As far as the UN, or any other "world body" with even MORE power goes, they should be, in my opinion, erased from the entire planet as a blight on humanity.

There needs to be a global order. We are in an era that demands it. However, this global order needs to be taken up by all people of the globe, not just the most powerful nations and their self-interests like in the UN.

That was nice, and I'm sure everyone here has a new perspective on this.

Needs a bit more to clarify how this connects to the topic.

reply to post by phatpackage


"The overall effort in Iraq"?????

The invasion of a sovereign country based on the premise of outright lies?

The use of depleted uranium weapons that affect both Iraqi citizens and American soldiers alike.

The "overall effort" can be wrapped up in one word: imperialism.

reply to post by thehotsaucecommittee

BS.

United Nations approved.

And those depleted uranium sabots have like one-fiftieth of the radioactivity of normal ore content of a typical surrounding area.

You want more radioactivity? The mountains of the US, including the beaches of Florida.

Let's just think of every possible BS concern, pile it all up on the US, and have a pity party.

Who wants to whimper first?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by nenothtu
Also, I'm against the NAFTA and CAFTA as well, because they are a step on the rad to globalization, which I am dead set against. I must admit to being at a loss to understand why you are against it, though, as it appears that you are all for globalization. That's what I take from your talk of a "global society" and a global government with more teeth than the UN. I assure you that I will not live to see that day nor will my son. We will, without doubt, be killed on the road to globalization - it just won't happen while we still draw breath.

I'm not talking about globalization, I'm talking about a universal world order.

We probably ought to let that conversation drop as well, since it's veering dangerously close to off-topic, and we will likely never be on the same page definitions wise anyhow. "universal", to me, is not limited to Earth, and for the life of me, I can't see how one would accomplish a "world order" without involving the entire world - also on the globalist agenda. You're talking economics, I'm talking politics, and even though the two dangerously intertwine far too often, they are not the same thing.

I will refuse to engage in, or comply with the orders of, ANY sort of "world order" - which refusals will no doubt largely go unnoticed. I'm an American, you're a Canadian, and no outside entities have any damned business at all setting policy for us. Certainly not a BUNCH of outside entities as embodied in a "world order" or "world organization".

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by thehotsaucecommittee

 

BS.
United Nations approved.
And those depleted uranium sabots have like one-fiftieth of the radioactivity of normal ore content of a typical surrounding area.
You want more radioactivity? The mountains of the US, including the beaches of Florida.
Let's just think of every possible BS concern, pile it all up on the US, and have a pity party.
Who wants to whimper first?

UN approved.??? Since when???

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by backinblack


Kofi Annan
Isn't the UN.

"I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgment for the judgment of the member states,"

He gave his opinion. Now that you brought it up.

Post a link or story to ANY documentation from the UN stating that it was illegal.
Please.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Post a link or story to ANY documentation from the UN stating that it was illegal.
Please.

I'll have a look..
In the mean time, why don't you post the documentation PRIOR to the US attack to show it was UN approved..

reply to post by SLAYER69

In 2003, the governments of the U.S., Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. [1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the U.S., Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.[2]

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes I know its wiki but atleast I'm showing something..
Where's your proof it was approved by the UN.??

reply to post by backinblack

BackinBlack, since it appears you are very young and in sore need of some education, let me clue you in.

The United Nations, is nothing.

The UN passes resolution after resolution, like a summer grass-fed cow passes gas.

The sloth is lightening fast when compared to the UN. In fact, the sloth is a vicious predator compared to the UN.

No nation - and that would certainly apply to the US - NO NATION ever would defer their national interests to a bunch of clowns in the UN.

Normally, you sit at the head of the table in your own house, the porch dogs have to stay outside, and the pot-licking dogs have to stay under the table. Not with the UN. Every squeaky dog present is either yapping in our face, chewing the table cloth, slurping off our plate, or pissing down our legs.

I personally wish the US would vacate and abandon the UN, which has become nothing more than a platform for third-rate nations determined to bring second and first tier nations down to their level.

So the UN had passed resolution after resolution after resolution on Iraq. It didn't matter.

Bush decided to go in - the dumbass - and we most efficiently, we became embroiled in the middle of a civil war.

Now, the Shia can kill Sunni all day long, and vice versa.

I say we arm up the Kurds and let the other kill each other off.

reply to post by FarArcher

BackinBlack, since it appears you are very young and in sore need of some education, let me clue you in.

The United Nations, is nothing.

No, let me clue YOU in...
It was YOU that stated the UN approved the war in Iraq..

I was merely replying to your uneducated beliefs....

I've ALWAYS stated the UN is a lame duck...!!
Maybe you just ignore my posts and rant on regardless, who knows?

Ohh, and I have 3 grandkids, real young

reply to post by backinblack

My apologies, I may have recalled the original UN approval, and not the follow up, part 2, or a continuation of part 1.

You too think the UN sucks? Well we agree on that.

Just not much else.

And don't get hung up on that age thing. I know some old fools just like I know young fools.

Just not as many old fools as foolishness has a significantly higher mortality rate.

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by backinblack

 

My apologies, I may have recalled the original UN approval, and not the follow up, part 2, or a continuation of part 1.

You too think the UN sucks? Well we agree on that.

Just not much else.

And don't get hung up on that age thing. I know some old fools just like I know young fools.

Just not as many old fools as foolishness has a significantly higher mortality rate.

Stared the apology..Always good to see in a debate..
Yes, the UN has always been useless in my eyes.
Just a waste of space and an excuse for more diplomats and expensive meetings..
Though a TRUE UN would be a good idea but not likely to happen..
Ohh, I'm not hung up on my age..Though probably not as old as grandad tag suggests.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by backinblack

 

My apologies, I may have recalled the original UN approval, and not the follow up, part 2, or a continuation of part 1.

You too think the UN sucks? Well we agree on that.

Just not much else.

And don't get hung up on that age thing. I know some old fools just like I know young fools.

Just not as many old fools as foolishness has a significantly higher mortality rate.

Stared the apology..Always good to see in a debate..
Yes, the UN has always been useless in my eyes.
Just a waste of space and an excuse for more diplomats and expensive meetings..
Though a TRUE UN would be a good idea but not likely to happen..
Ohh, I'm not hung up on my age..Though probably not as old as grandad tag suggests.

So who thinks it is plausible for the UN/Blue Helmets to come here to the US?

reply to post by macman

So who thinks it is plausible for the UN/Blue Helmets to come here to the US?

Already there..
They train quite often in other countries..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by macman

 

So who thinks it is plausible for the UN/Blue Helmets to come here to the US?

Already there..
They train quite often in other countries..

AS in law/rule enforcement here?

reply to post by macman

They can bring all the baby-blue helmets they want.

What a target.

What a target!

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by macman

 

They can bring all the baby-blue helmets they want.

What a target.

What a target!

They'd have to send an awful lot of blue helmets to fight of US gun owners..
The UN forces run away from lightly armed natives in Africa...

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by macman

 

They can bring all the baby-blue helmets they want.

What a target.

What a target!

They'd have to send an awful lot of blue helmets to fight of US gun owners..
The UN forces run away from lightly armed natives in Africa...

That is what I was getting at.
Yet we let them run the show in a building built with our money, in a town in our country.
There is something bigger in this deal that is not being shown.

The US has literally a hundred thousand COMBAT VETERANS who've seen the varmit, met him, and busted his ass.

The US has literally 30,000,000 gun owners, many with multiple weapons, and piles and boxes and crates of ammunition.

The UN couldn't put together enough troops to take Miami.