579>> I seen a global citizen today. There was this great big fat female driving a very small car. I don't fancy her chances of gettin out of the car in any sort of a rush.<<

Was she pretty?

@King Hazza, "I was being rather tongue-in-cheek about 'fixing'."

Sorry, as a newbie to this forum I'm not yet familiar with personalities to recognize your subtlety.

"The fact that the UN can't do anything about it- I'm still weighing up if that's for the worse or better actually."

Yes, it's not as easy a proposition as we would like it to be, is it? One way creates an autonomous all governing global government that in turn puts to question every nations sovereignty, creating a giant bureaucracy and power-base to (mis)-use. The other way is to have an impotent facade that is manipulated by self-serving large powers, that is unable to effect policy unless supported by it's major contributors, such as we have now.

There doesn't seem to be a win/win scenario, but only a choice of two evils.

"..and the backlash from terrorism."

IMO, most of the terrorism that we have witnessed has been State sponsored. We have been all duped into two unjust wars under the one banner of "terrorism". My cynical view ... SAUDIs in planes hit the WTC and Pentagon, so America attacks Afghanistan on its way to Iraq. Hypothetically, if Australia was attacked by Indonesian terrorists crashing planes into Parliament House and the Opera House, should we attack Japan on our way to South Korea...like America, we just attack SOMEONE in the region?!? And then, should we wine and dine with the Indonesians, as the Americans do with the Saudis? Or, could it be that Saudi has a lot of oil, and America consumes 30% of the globally produced oil, and needs more, and Iraq is "convenient"? Afghanistan may well be a strategic move to control that region which is not far from the south-eastern border of China, and while being in both Afghanistan and Iraq, America flanks Iran.

There's far more to all this than meets the eye of us Joe Averages that aren't in US government.

VERY well observed MindlessCruelty;

1- true on the interests behind pushing for carbon policy; especially note the 'carbon trading' policy, as there are plenty of marketing options opened up from such an industry (not to mention a great excuse to jack up prices).

2- An additional problem with a global government is what kind of government they would need to be to represent, and deciding what rights to govern over which areas they would actually get. Considering the broad difference in laws, rights and governing styles, getting consensus would be quite impossible.

3- Very well observed about the Saudis- adding to your points how much money that family has- and how many investment opportunities their oil companies would provide, I imagine their interests would be the highest priority of US middle East policy (and I imagine, quite a few other countries around the world).

@King Hazza, thanks for your kind words, and I agree with your points.

"2- An additional problem with a global government is what kind of government they would need to be to represent, and deciding what rights to govern over which areas they would actually get. Considering the broad difference in laws, rights and governing styles, getting consensus would be quite impossible".

Good point, and is behind my belief of the well prepared speech for GWB in his declaration of war..."you're either with us or agin us," was pivotal to America's push for just such a position. America isn't selling democracy, it's selling consumerism while it's expanding its marketplace through cultural influence, and securing its resources.

Multiculturalism is fine, so long as you speak American.

America's greatest fear at the moment has to be China. A billion people being Communist was great, but a billion people becoming Capitalist and consumers puts a strain on not only resources, but the deals for them. The combination of the tight regulation and the power of numbers, makes China not only formidable, but their usurping of the US-dominant global economic engine, inevitable.

So America is attempting to "get there first", and squeeze China's access to them. However, China is very aware of how America squeezed the oil supply to Japan during WWII, by placing an oil embargo on Japan and controlling the Taiwan Straits. China has been busy building infrastructure in all directions of its continent so that it can't be hemmed-in like Japan was, for up until relatively recently, China too has been dependent upon the Taiwan Straits for access to oil. But apparently, not anymore. And as an aside, thus the relevance of Taiwan to the West, and to China...control of the Straits, and thus oil to the East in times of hostilities, for all oil by sea passes through there.

So positioning in Afghanistan has numerous geo-political advantages for the US. It forces China to go over land and mountain, or the long way around, north through seas that freeze in winter.

It's an interesting game of multi-level chess to watch.

http://www.worldcitizens.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39&Itemid=7

Some of the possible paths to a global democratic parliament include:

* Reform of the United Nations. Through constitutional reform the United Nations could transform itself into a genuine domocratic world federation of nations. An example of this would be the United Nation Parliamentary Assembly.

* Enlargement of the Euopean Union. Gradual enlargement of the European Union to include countries outside the borders of Europe.

* The Functional Approach. Functionalists such as David Mitrany would argue for what might be called the “look, no hands!” approach. The functional needs of the world community will demand their own solutions. Agencies and committees will be set up to handle these common problems, and little by little the various national sovereignties will be whittled away and transferred to the growing network of international agencies. There is no need to set up any formal political structures to achieve integration.

* The Regional Approach. Following on from the success of the European Common Market, other economic integration and free trade organisations have sprung up for example, North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). This can lead on to other associations been built like the Organisation of American Strates (OAS), African Union, Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Nordic Council and the League of Arab States (Arab League). Although none of these organisations have a political structure like the EU, it is a start and may follow the same road that the EU began.

* The Evolutionary Approach. This strategy is to begin with an association of a few of the more progressive states, with a specific and limited set of aims, and then let it evolve in a natural, state-by-stage fashion towards a more deeply integrated community with wider membership.

ALGORE SAID:

“But when Bob Brown get's all fired up about something..the red flags go sproinggggggg.. and wave high up in the air. If Brown likes something..it's like us swimming outside the flags at Bondi..there is an unseen RIP waiting to drag us out to sea or moral degradation.

In spite of Pericles protestations and froth, the idea of 'Global citizen' is high in many peoples minds, and Brown would be one of the foremost perveyors of the idea.”

OK, I’ve got you all worked out now. If Greens are for it, you’re against it. No thought involved… you’re an automaton and unable to think for yourself.

So why was I engaging you in the other threads? I thought, for a moment, that you were a thinking person. I thought as a Christian you’d be all for human rights? I guess I was wrong.

World democracy is the only way we’re going to guarantee something like the Rwandan massacre doesn’t happen again. World democracy is the way to end many of our wars. World democracy might just create a worldwide ‘demographic transition’ which will solve population growth and encourage true sustainability.

It’s why I’m a fan of the EU. Applicant countries have to vastly increase their human rights records, accountability and transparency in government, and improve in all sorts of areas to even have the HOPE of joining. I imagine a world government will start through enticement rather than at the point of a gun. The EU will gradually grow. The Asian Union, the South American Union, and the African Union are all on the way. It’s happening, bit by bit. And one day they may just get together to form a global government. Then we’ll finally have something that can stand up to the multinationals!