 |
| |
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Proteus_MST
On the other hand the truely bad thing with unilateral Power is:
If in this most powerful state a president is elected who misuses those powers against the other states in the world to gather more influence, power or wealth for his own state, there is no other state capable to stop him.
In a mulipolar world if this same president would be kept at bay by the other powers. |
Perhaps. The world hasn't really ever seen times like today's unipolar situation before. During the Cold War, "keeping the other side at bay" meant things like overthrowing democratically elected states to install puppet dicatators. I'm not sure this was such a great thing. Before that, the great powers would just go in, kill the local chiefs and install a royal governor.
Let me pose it as a question: Is the world better off now that the Cold War is ended?
quote:
So it seems also very risky to me to have only one state and (as a citizens of those states which are not so powerful) IŽd rather take the risk of a divided world, than the risk to be some day oppressed by a single powerful state. |
Interestingly, the position you advocate parallels exactly the position of the gun lobby here in the US, i.e. I need a gun because the gov't has guns and may one day become oppressive.
The answer to both is to question the reality of the alleged oppression. How oppressed are you really and how much of it is just contrariness or spouting rhetoric? Feel free to compare your oppression with the oppression from another time period.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"We will burry you!"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Just reminded me too much of Krushzev (or however he's spelled in english).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Perhaps. The world hasn't really ever seen times like today's unipolar situation before. During the Cold War, "keeping the other side at bay" meant things like overthrowing democratically elected states to install puppet dicatators. I'm not sure this was such a great thing. Before that, the great powers would just go in, kill the local chiefs and install a royal governor.
Let me pose it as a question: Is the world better off now that the Cold War is ended?
|
I donŽt know if it is better now.
But at least with the end of the cold war a lot of things come into the light, a lot of failures which have been made by the USA and the USSR (if I remember correctly one of those failures led to the Destruction of the Twin Towers).
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Interestingly, the position you advocate parallels exactly the position of the gun lobby here in the US, i.e. I need a gun because the gov't has guns and may one day become oppressive.
The answer to both is to question the reality of the alleged oppression. How oppressed are you really and how much of it is just contrariness or spouting rhetoric? Feel free to compare your oppression with the oppression from another time period. |
There is one Difference though.
The Government your Gun Lobby obviously fears is elected by your own people. with other words, the people have a certain influence to decide who governs them (for good as well as for bad). They even could become Politicians to change the way the government behaves.
If on the other hand my country one day gets invaded by the prime Superpower (because there is no other country powerful enough to keep it at bay) I wouldnŽt have any influence on this. It would be a government in whose election I wouldnŽt have any Influence and whose behaviour I couldnŽt influence.
Lets assume someone would one day propose the Idea of a World Government which is elected by all the people of the world, governs the world and has an own army (whereas all the countries of the world wouldnŽt be more than countys and would justb have Police forces at their disposal, but no standing armies anymore).
I would be one of the Proponents of such a world government. Why?
Because I would have the feeling that I could have an influence over the government either by electing the party or president which best suits my taste, or by becoming a politician.
In this case we would also have an unipolar Superpower, but one in which I could actively participate and in which I would have an (albeit small) influence.
ThatŽs one thing I donŽt have with the USA being unipolar Siuperpower (and this is the reason why so many people outside the USA are scared by a President who has the Policy of "America first"  )
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
I donŽt know if it is better now. |
So you would prefer going to sleep at night with the very real threat of nuclear war hanging over your head? Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the very real possibility of utter annihilation anytime US/USSR relations took a sour turn. I don't know about Germany, but many Americans in the 50's and 60's and even later figured a nuclear war with the Soviets was a matter of when, not if.
Remember the Doomsday Clock? First Strike Strategy? Dr. Strangelove? Cuban Missile Crisis? Nuclear Winter? As a German you must at least know about the hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops and thousands of missiles pointed at your home. Nobody even mentions these things today, let alone worries about them.
Surely mankind was never more on the edge of extinction than during the Cold War.
quote:
Lets assume someone would one day propose the Idea of a World Government which is elected by all the people of the world, governs the world and has an own army |
Why would it need an army? Armies are for external threats.
quote:
I would be one of the Proponents of such a world government. Why? Because I would have the feeling that I could have an influence over the government either by electing the party or president which best suits my taste, or by becoming a politician. |
I suspect you may not really believe this. The gap between rich and poor in the world today is too great to make a world-wide representative government feasible. The much greater numbers of poor people would drain your economy of its wealth and capital to the point of it no longer being functional. It would be like the Russia of 1917 all over again. Your gov't, like all other western govt's, prevents this scenario with strict immigration policies.
The way to a one world gov't is to help developing nations achieve the same economic success as the west. The EU works because all its members are industrialized. It would not work if Bangladesh was a member.
In any case, my main point is that two or more powerful nations inevitably conflict. The results of these conflicts (large scale war, dictatorships, subversion) have not proven to be good for humanity.
Yes, you have no voice in US elections. But I would again ask what real oppression you are currently experiencing such that you prefer to turn back the clock to the era of authoritariansism, totalitarism and all the very real human suffering that accompanied it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
If you ingest enough mice, your answer will probably be yes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
Considering that the EU will be adding between 5 and 15 new countries in the next decade or two, it's overall population will rise significantly faster than the USA. Even with the fact that some of the new countries are not as powerful economically at this time, they will still add to the overall EU economic might and obviously more so as time goes on and they are integrated & upgraded.
I can't see the USA building its lead any further over the EU economically, in fact I'm sure the EU will overtake the USA shortly and build a large lead. Military might will no doubt suck for a fair while until the power struggles can be resolved.
Do we need a large military though? Hmm, a toughie. As someone said, once you have the capabiity to do something - resisting the urge to do it can be hard.
I would like to see the EU have more muscle when it goes into future diplomacy. The world needs one superpower like a shot to the head, having said that though many competing powers causing arms races and other negative events would obviously be bad too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Horsie:
"From what I hear the US Administration is going to be in a mood to settle a few scores after the war."
That's assured.
"But it does mean European integration is dead in the water and the US will see it as in its interests to keep Europe divided."
Will see? It always did. Didn't stop us, will not stop us.
"You can kiss Nato goodbye"
That would be excellent news.
"and Britain will become the unsinkable aircraft carrier once again."
That remains to be seen, depends on how thsi war goes, and how the next one goes, and the one after that...
"Should Europe re-arm? They'll have to. The US is in no mood to defend continental Europe any more."
Against what, pray tell?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-03-2003 01:02
|