...I was thinking about this the other morning and I actually figured a way to get rid of almost all conflicts, racism, disease, starvation, over-population, endangerment to species, etc.

What you do is this:
-Get Britain to join the European Union.

-Create an Oceanic Union between Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, etc; all the countries below Indonesia.

-Create an American Union between the continental United States and Canada.

-Then, you go to Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and South America and you kill everybody there.

-Divide the newly vacated continents between the three Unions and give each a task to do. Eg: get oil from oil reserves in the Middle East, grow harvests in Africa, etc.
~

Now, in theory, you have gotten rid of more than half the world's population, significantly reducing the strain on limited resources and allowing more energy to be put into developing resources instead of fighting and shit.
You have also gotten rid of huge numbers of people responsible for disease such as the millions of AIDs victims in Africa.
Political structures and regimes such as communism in China, Middle East feudal systems, and South America's drug-related power system would all be gone.
Racism would be greatly diminished because almost everybody would be white and speak english.
The world's focus would no longer be on war, fighting, or trying to screw over other countries. Instead, people could concentrate on restoring Earth to some semblance of it's former self and things such as education and literacy would, once again, be important.

What do you think?
Sound good?

yeah .. so uhh ... lets get started.

How are we going to decide who gets to be leader of each part of the world?

My choice would be the Canadian, British, and Australian Prime Ministers running each respective union and reporting to a worldwide governing body like the UN.

Yours?

You just know that the USN, EU and OCU are going to fight over the next generation nuke technology. Possibly with giant robots.

all you have to do is blow up the middle east and that's close enough to world peace.
that's if we find other things we need to do and don't have time for the whole plan.

i would say wipe out humanity and then you would have world peace

I see nothing wrong with that solution...where should we start?

Sure the communist regimes and powerful/political drug cartels would be gone.. but you've also obliterated a large percentage of the population. It sounds like you're justifying this from a semi-moral standpoint.

And forgive me.. but genocide is hardly moral.

middle east

would make a great glass mirror

i'm still trying to figure out why the states just didn't flatten Irag and Afghanistan

same reason we were't allowed to win in Vietnam....we act like the big kid on the block and we see what needs done, but we are afraid to offend anyone in the process so we make the effort to do it without offending and end up doing in in an ineffective way.

Veitnam i can understand. Afghanistan you were going after the people responsibile for the terrorist attack on your soil. you should have just gone in a flatten it. as Bush should have done to Irag in the Gulf War

but if we did, we would have offended someone and our press and a lot of politicians won't allow for that....that is why folk like John Kerry can say they voted for the war in Iraq by voting to sent in the troops then vote against it by voting against giving them the equipment and funds they need to do it right

my view of elections. look at the platforms they all have and vote for the best liar. doesn't matter what they say as they won't do it or keep to thier word as seen by our wonderful premiere of Ontario just did.

I look at it this way...and I take it very seriously....

Look at what a politician has to say, then I compare it with their voting record...do they have the moral conviction to stand up for what they believe in and voted acording to what they said.....then i compare the track record to those that follow my beliefs and ideals....

it's a lot of work to find all the info but then I can vote for the person that most closely represents me


I could never vote for Kerry because, he has no morals when you review what he says compared to how he votes.

I think that's ridiculous. The U.S didn't invade and ultimately destroy Iraq because they were afraid of "offending" someone? The U.S. didn't nuke the sumbitch because the United States government is not sovereign in its decision-making. There are other things to consider besides hurt feelings. Saying that we were afraid of being offensive is limiting and wrong.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.... I'll try to explain myself a bit more

American has a long history of not getting involved because we were not willing to take a risk or we didn't believe that something that was happening would affect us. A good example would be world war II and us not getting involved until we were attacked by the Japanese. We only got seriously involved at that point. I'm not talking about weapons and supply shipments that went over to Britian prior to that.

In Korea, we wanted to stop the spread of communism and protect south Korea from the North and China. but the American press and many poitician didn't want that to happen so they pushed to limit what we were allowed to do. We had unrealistic limits placed on our troops that prevented them from being able to win....if the enemy is one place, and you know where he is, why would you not go get him? we weren't allowed to.

The same in Vietnam. The american press overpublizied the protests and tried to show this massive antiwar movement that was really there. The American Politicians worked overtime to prevent us from being able to win that one as well.

Now look at Irag and Afganistan, we went in nd did what was needed to be done, and what happend, the press suddenly reverted to the same tactics as before and the American Policitians did the same....suddenly were the bad guys in their eyes and there have even been politicians saying that Saddam was a good guy....his murdering/raping/torturing has been forgotten....but then again, you can't find any unedited copies of the films from 9/11 when folks lept from the world trade centers to escape burning to death.....the bodies have been edited out.

So we went in with and overwhelming force and took control away from monsters. Now we have to keep it and make it safe....and the press and politicians are not willing to give the troops the equipment and support they need. It isn't a matter of "nuking" them to beat them. There wouldn't be anything left for those that live there. but you have to realize that the troops that are there have to be supported if we want a government established that won't be as bad as those it will replace.

We still have troops in Germany, it took years before it was safe and stable. The same with our troups in Japan and Korea and other, smaller and less mentioned places across the globe.

The facts have always remained the same....there is a brief moment of sudden emotion that has spurred the US into action. then someone begins to forget or look at it from an isolationist's point of view and the support begins to deteriate. The hard part isn't wresting control from the beast, but keeping it. It is a small world that keeps getting smaller. Anything we do has a global impact now moreso then in the past.

damn...that turned into a politial ramble to rival Lawson's........


the sad thing is tho, until you have been there and seen what is happening, you may never understand it. I spent 9 years on the inside, from an enlisted man's point of view inside the Air Force and the Army....my point of view is from opinion based on experience and not raw, uncontroled emotion.

i'll be European leader

i've bagged it first so the jobs mine