the big problem..as i see it..is united nations..should represent..the united states[of all..the states..of the world]..

[without the pubic servants [only one secretary/secret agent.,.policeman..or copper][bodypguard]....to watchn/report
that..they..[OUR REPS}..dont parlay..dealings..into treason..to the state

not just..the straight..staid/states of america
but the united states..of the world..

and all they can do..is resolve disputes..and endorse or dis-endorse state laws/state treaties..and states..giving away their peoples resources services..cash grants..or leases..to their..school..chums..or thier pals secret trust accounts

any business large enough..to be a state..gets a seat at the table
[either that..or a *sovereign united nation..[s.u.n]..with just the heads,..that act's like a house of lords..[without the servants]

Paul1405, "how would YOU prevent their election in the first place"

However I am not recommending the UN be the 'One World Government', the Greens are, and Bob Brown reckoned he should be the first president. LOL

otb,

As I've stated previously -
in a world where all nations face a common threat
of direct or indirect involvement in nuclear warfare,
some reliable method is needed to limit conflicts
among sovereign states. Those that anticipate that some
benign and fair "world government" will take on the task,
are likely to be disappointed. But if we look for
progress along that continuum that runs from war to peace,
the prospects are much more encouraging. Once we recognize
that war and peace are really opposite ends of a
continuum and that movement along this continuum, in
either direction, is the result of social processes that
develop and change over time under the influence of
government policies and popular pressures.

We have seen this process in the hostile, intricate dance of
the superpowers as they waver along the contimuum between
war and peace - sometimes tending one way, sometimes another.
Their policies are contrained by the knowledge that if one
side pushes the other too far, nuclear war could result.
Consequently, the countries test one another - but only
within the perceived limits of their mutual tolerance.
They are generally careful to avoid direct confrontation.

War and peace, therefore, are not either/or alternatives, for
the various actions or inactions of the superpowers tend to
move the world one way or another along the contimuum between
military holocaust and peaceful harmony. Seen in this light,
steps designed to enhance the prospects for peace rather than
war are matters of practical reality, not impractical ideals.

war..kills off the poor..the eternal external necessity.
Report from Iron Mountain unveils a hitherto top-secret report of a government commission that was requested to explore the consequences of lasting peace on American society.

http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/reportironmountain1.shtml

The shocking results of the study, as revealed in this report, led the government to conceal the existence of the commission--they had found that, among other things, peace may never be possible;

*that even if it were, it would probably be un-desirable, that "defending the national interest" is not the real purpose of war;
*that war is necessary;
that war deaths should be planned and budgeted.

REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN tells the story of how the project was formed, how it operated, What happened to it.

It includes the complete verbatim text
of the commission's hitherto classified report.

so willit be disinfo
or coded..info ..who..i knows only you could decide
being talked of here/now

http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/shoutcast/shoutcast.html

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=serum+phosphate+level+tooth+decay&

if your serum level falls below 3.9..ya teeth can rot
above..they cant

so..now do we get fake phosphates
like we got good/bad cholesterol..[or fats and trans-fats

thing is..the man..is playing games
but then there is the heavy ,metals we can avoid

just by ending war