Would you become a terrorist against a UN led World Government?

Now I"m not a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe black helicopters with blue helmeted UN soldiers is going to be coming into America and stripping Americans of their Sovereignty or their consented government by force.

However, I read this article today which discusses the proposed creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly and how it's another step towards one world government.

Yes, yes. this is all interesting. It's all completely natural for us to be one big global family. Here's the problem.

This article extols the virtues of a world democracy. The problem is that "democracy" does not necessarily mean "freedom and liberty" in the way it is understood in the United States.

It's obvious to anyone who pays attention, that there are many rights, freedoms and liberties that may be a big deal in America, but are considered out-of-date, unnecessary or even dangerous by the rest of the world.

So the question is. Should such a government come about and the USA somehow froced through probably peaceful, economic means, to joining such a governmental body against the will of what would probably be a sizable percentage of Americans. Many millions of Americans would probably turn to guerrilla warfare and terrorism against the UN and would be far far more dangerous than any Al Qaeda terrorist could ever dream of being.

Would you become a terrorist against a UN led One World Government?

 

Well, if it was like Monaco or Somalia I wouldn't mind.

 

If anything the world would be more like America if the UN ran everything, we are the UNs assault force after all.

 

I don't see the scenario you're describing happening in the foreseeable future. While there is a growth in international groups and organisations, I don't think there will be a great increase in imposition of policies on individual countries (at least not large Western Democracies like USA).

If such a thing were attempted, it would either be opposed by the US government of the day (so the social, political or military opposition would be state rather than individual) or would be supported by the US government, meaning any opposition from the US people would be mainly focused against their own government (in fact, the likely players would target anything that looks like authority). I don't see any significant number of US citizens engaging in any kind of warfare against the UN in any realistic circumstance.

Incidentally, I'd hope I'd never become a terrorist for any reason.

 

>>>That's because the terms "freedom and liberty" have been bastardized by the right wing in the United States.

 

Youd be killing Americans in order to further your aims.

That ok with you?

 

What makes you think it would be peaceful?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRg9il_V328&feature=related"]YouTube - FBI Agent Talking About Bill Ayers[/ame]

And my answer is.."Live Free or Perish"

 

This is world government. I could strike at it anywhere in the world. I could blow up the hague in Brussels.. I could drop the eiffel tower. You think I'd make terrorism and war against my own people?

No I'd strike at the true heart of what that establishment would be. Europe.

 

actually, the hypothetical future world government would likely be dominated by Asia.

 

There is no excuse for being a terrorist for any reason.

 

This is the problem with the right wing. On one hand, they are outraged when people accuse them of violent rhetoric. And then they continue to engage in violent rhetoric.

 

Whereas the left does the same and then tries to insist - with a straight face - that they are not doing exactly that.

 

i didn't see many liberals advocating blowing up stuff, if they don't get nationalized healthcare.

 

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

that's why i oppose terrorists and freedom fighters.

 

You see what you want to see. Extremists on either side are violent and dangerous.

 

No it's not. Terrorists are terrorists.

 

This is the kind of crap that far right wingers lay awake at night worrying about.

Look at all the hyperbole that was always generated about the military of the USSR when it existed. It was used as an excuse to rattle sabers, keep the military spending at top levels and scare the bejezus out of everyone.

Now that the USSR is gone, we're looking for new "threats" to give the military relevancy.

We can't come right out and pick a fight with China at the moment, they own too much of our debt so that forces us to play nice with them, even though they are guilty of uncounted civil rights violations.

Russia is now our Democratic ally, so we can't pick on them now either.

The "threat" posed by Afghanistan was wiped out in a month when we "invaded" although controlling that mess is a totally different matter, as the Russians found out.

Saddam Hussein is gone now, can't use Iraq as a "threat" now either, though as we found out that was another lie, just like Russia's so called Military Dominance was.

I mean, let's be realistic when thinking about the whole UN one world government concept. How many countries are there in the world now that a dozen grandmothers with brooms could take over tomorrow, and the UN just lets them exist for some reason? If the UN is going to start uniting the world in a single government, why not start with the weak ones and start consolidating now?

This is pure stupidity to even think that they would try to tackle the US first, or China for that matter.

It's time we stopped giving these kinds of whackos the time of day, and start ignoring them on a regular basis.

 

Yes and anyone just has to read a few boards here to realise that out of all the members here, the Israeli and the US members are by far the ones who talk day in and day out about killing, blowing up, toppling, crushing, murdering, nuking, anyone who disagrees with them.

go on check it out

you just have to look a few posts up to one of them who posts daily on who and how he would kill and who todays targets would be the Hague and the tower eiffel, tomorrow someone else and the next day someone else again

We all know who the 'real' terrorists are.

 

The USSR was absolutely a very real threat, and it was military spending (among other things) that led us to win the Cold War.

 

Talking about things on a forum is not terrorism, and there are plenty of stupid things said from the left and the right here all the time.

 

If the libertarian right wing wants to be terrorists, they should attack the extremely rich of America. The United States is now a plutocracy (government by the extremely rich) and the great bulk of the population is no better off than they were 30 years ago (in spite of the fact the average household has an extra half a breadwinner than it did 30 years ago). Wages are effectively dropping because higher-paying labor jobs have been exported overseas so consumption can increase only by borrowing (private debt - often against the equity of a home).

This squeeze on consumption also means the very rich have to find other places to invest their money (factories and businesses are generally a poor bet). This has led to both the increasing importance of the financial sector and the loosening of restrictions on what the financial sector can do and is probably the direct cause of the crash in 2008.

The only reason the world didn't enter a Depression was because of massive bailouts by government. At first glance this looks good, but it also means the rest of the country are subsizing the extremely rich (again!) and it generates too little pressure to reform the financial and political system. Perhaps the killing of a few flagrant examples like Paulson the hedge fund manager would focus some attention on this situation.

 

Nazi's considered the attack on Hilter from it's own people an act of terrorism (Valkyrie). SO you agree with that premise?

An when is it terrorism or patriotism? Who defines the act?

 

Why would a world government necessarily violate my rights?

Why can't the powers of a world government limited by a constitution?

There isn't a logical explanation as to why a world government would oppress anyone's rights. It wouldn't have anything to gain from it.

You can't win a fight against the boogeyman, because the boogeyman is just a manifestation of your own fear. Realizing there is nothing to fear is the only way out.

 

It was not. They were members of a uniformed military and hitler was no civilian (to give just two reasons why it was not).