Should Sweden join the NATO?

Yeah, we needn't worry about them cozying up to kooks in Iran and Syria. Nothing to see here folks, move along! Ignore that man behind the curtain!

ROFLMAO

 

is having not an army a serious option? and if not, wouldn't it be better to be even stronger than now?

Well yeah, nobody really wants sweden, that's true. But, couldn't we just disarm completely then?

Isn't that reason enough then, to be under their nuclear sheild? and the other benefits. I see little negative with joining the NATO, whilst the positive things are many.

 

haha, the russians deserve some though don't they? we should've retaken finland while we had the chance.. and ingira, and estland, and lettland, and lithuania, and karelen, and finnmark.. and moskva just because..

No but seriously, I don't see how you can blame us for being warmongers when we've had peace for two hundred years, while supporting the nazis. quite a feat no?

 

yeah, we could just continue to be neutral.. it's probably kinda safe, but I want the west to gain more influence. maybe joining NATO doesn't achieve that very much thouhg. and what do you mean the chinese are moving left? they're, or were, commies. can it get any leftier? if anything, they're moving towards the right, capitalism is commonly thought of as right no?

There certianly seems to be worrying trends towards world government yes, but I think it will reverse soon; nationalism is comming. ANd no, religion per se isn't bad, political and violent versions of it are.

 

Anyone who wants their country to be in an organization that carries any obligation to the United States or gives the United States access to its government and/or military power structure has no idea what is happening in the world. Sweden has already prostituted it's justice system in harassing Assange at the behest of the US police state. Sweden would do well to stay out of NATO and maintain it's freedom and independence.

 

Often confused... if you aren't familiar with political terms, it could look as though China was/is liberal or leftist. Communism is an economic system and not political. Communism never existed as a form of government. China, like Cuba, was very restrictive in human rights, permission to travel outside of the country, basic freedoms, etc. That's conservative. Keeping a status quo in charge (dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies) is conservative. Look up the true definition of liberal, not the bastardized version meaning leftist.

One World Government:
Transportation and communication are the factors of evolving societies and governmental bodies. First man began with tribes with tribal leaders as governing bodies. Man then advanced to small villages with a suspicion of other villages not far away. These villages had elders as a governing body. No real established boundaries existed for these villages and people. Next, mankind reduced suspicion and worries of other villages and their people forming territories (Danes, Saxons, the Geat, Lombards, Vandals, etc.). As water travel became safe and efficient, people began to interact and trade. From there it was city states (Rome, Venice, Milan) as well as the areas of the Hanseatic League that were the power centers. The next step was the unification of city-states into countries. Transportation became faster. If you asked any leader of a city-state that they would unite with their competition and form a nation they wouldn't believe it. And now there's an EU. Communication (internet) has made the world closer. Transportation keeps advancing. Another move forward to a one world government is just a natural progression and one which is practical.

For security, a OWG keeps all countries on an equal footing. It's also safer to have a common goal as mankind advances technologically.

Increased nationalism: That becomes less and less as a global economy expands. It is not in a nation's best interest to pull back within itself and disregard or ignore other nations. We're at the point where a country cannot exist without being involved in global trade.

 

haha, I love seeing the Finno-Swede feud going on. Awesome.

For matters of defense - no. If Sweden is attacked, NATO will come to it's aid regardless.

For matters of supporting a safe world for western democracies - yeah, probably.

 

NATO is a relic of the past.

 

well, (*)(*)(*)(*)! they skipped joining NATO and got themsleves a king!



watch out Russia!

 

I would never say china is liberal, liberalism is freedom ideology. communism is not only an economic system I'd say, but there are many varieties of it, some, like maoism, certianly has socially authoritarian elements. No, what the communists refer to as communism, which is anarchism, has never been achieved wherever it's been tried, which is quite a convincing argument that it doesn't work. But one calls these failed attempts to form a communist anarchism for communism, typically associated with authoritarianism. No, you've got it very wrong; limiting freedoms isn't either inherently right or left, not conservative, but it can be justified by the extremes of either. Left isn't synonymous with freedom, nor does right mean oppression. The chinese are not conservative, easily proven with their cultural revolutions; and hey, they're a communist dictatorship, that's pretty much the antithesis to what a conservative in any shape would want.

I don't agree with you analysis of history, and there mayb be some small errors; Rome happened way eariler than the germanic tribes you mention, venice and milan didn't spring up from smaller enteties, they split away from a much larger one. There certianly wasn't any voluntary factor in most cases, rome being an obvious example, but also the germanic tribes. minor things.

No, I simply don't see this push towards human unity, spcially not in these days. Looking at catalonia, basqia, scotland, kurdistan, azawad, flanders and walloonia, northern italy, the balkans etc. they all show that nationalism is still going strong. I like that, btw. I also don't agree that a world government would be practical. for all the reasons current governments are bad, just imagine what they'd do if they could control the whole world. Most things are best kept at as local a level as possible, because humans are diverse and want different things. We don't want sharia law over thw world, they don't want gay marriage over there, we don't want to speak chinese, we dont want that, they want this etc. Why not let each do what they please, to each his own. Then the laws will be put on a population that actually wants them, and the country will be what they actually want; instead of all people sharing one government, it'd be hell. It

also has the huge potential to get really undemocratic; democracy isn't something universal all humans strive for, and iirc most humans don't really have much problem with more authoritarian systems. Common goals are still possible without a world government, they'll be between countries that want it, voluntary. and it will certainly not put countries on an equal footing, it will give more power to the already big. How will little sweden have a say in what the big boys do, we'd just be left to live by what they decide.

That hasn't got much to do with nationalism, what you're saying. Nationalism isn't being as asswad and not trade with other peoples just because. It is though, among other things, seeing to the best intrests of your country and people, and if that is done by trade then trade it is.

- - - Updated - - -

he's a dangerous fella i tell ya, hates 'em ruskies with his whole being. gonna march on moskva with his royal guard regiment, or so they say. watch out putin.

 

As usual, you're blaming "progressivism", when you should be blaming Wall Street and the military industrial complex.

Progressivism isn't the reason for our ills. Kneejerk reactions in policy can lead to a lot of problems, but progressivism doesn't hold a monopoly on that.

Progressivism was responsible for the disaster that Prohibition was, so I'll give you that one, but people of both parties have been responsible for keeping the War on Drugs going. The same goes for our rampant interventionism.

So, in the end, the real culprits for our ills are greed and paranoia.

Greed drives the elite rich to promote war and allows them to get industries bailed out with tax money, while paranoia allows the government to strip away rights.

 

Here's the primary problem with a one world government = an easier mode of colluding industries.

Multinational corporations might currently get around a lot of regulations through globalization, and the pains of outsourcing are immediately felt by the working class.

However, even as annoying as this arrangement is, having multiple governments to contend with is better than having one worldwide structure to influence. If you think corruption is bad now with the American government and lobbyism, a world government would be even worse.

The EU gives us a glimpse of this with the various cartel-like behaviors that industries within the EU subject non-EU companies to when it comes to trade.

If the entire world was under the same authority, then rights would likely become more restricted for Americans. They would be less restricted for most of the world, but it's basically a lot like economic globalization -- the majority eventually meets in the middle.

Economically, this meeting in the middle is tolerable. We all have to share the world's resources, and the market expedites that process. Politically, however, I don't want humanity to meet in the middle. I'd much rather see nations develop rights internally. That way, it's a positive movement toward more freedoms.

If you try to get everyone under the same authority politically, it's a neutral arrangement due to differences in cultural preferences. A lot of Islamic cultures don't really appreciate freedom of speech like we do, for example.

In short, national sovereignty is the ideal, because it allows for natural progressions in culture rather than forcing all cultures into the same learning curve.

 

America is getting out of the Empire Business. NATO is a relic of the past which will cease to have meaning when the US effectively loses its global reach in the coming decade.

 

Well, sort of...

What you're missing is that both the domestic and foreign policies are directed by the same monied interests that sit above our government. Progressivism is a direct attack upon the Constitution's restrictions, just as the imperialist, warmongering, meddling in everyone else's affairs are. Both battle fronts are directed by the elites who have been driving Amerikan policy for over 100 years.

Go back and look at the HCUA testimony and all of the evidence that was exposed regarding the activities of the Foundations. It was the round table groups, Foundations, and institutions controlled by the Establishment that were directing domestic communist activities, foreign policy, social agitation, and attacks on our society by slowly changing the curriculum in the government schools. They were constantly stoking the coals of social unrest and foreign misadventure - nothing has changed in that regard.

Certainly wartime profits were a motivation, but more than that the payoff came in being able to manipulate our society into casting off the chains of the Constitution. 50 years ago Americans still had a baseline understanding of republican government; today, most Amerikans can't spell republic.

 

Well, the HCUA itself was about as detrimental to the Constitution as anything implemented by government. The entire Red Scare period showed how similar we were to the Communists in the sense that freedom of speech was limited to what the state approved.

A truly free society doesn't blacklist people for political opinions -- even if those opinions are contrary to the basis of the said society.

A truly free society doesn't suspend habeas corpus for the sake of paranoia.

I agree with you on the monied interests, but their goals have little to do with social policy and everything to do with economic policy and foreign policy.

Most billionaires don't care about gay marriage. Most billionaires don't even really care about guns either.

Granted, I will give you that progressives are rather gun-phobic and obsessed with controlling people's smoking habits (or anything else health related).

 

I'm not talking about "billionaires"... Gates is a billionaire, he cerainly is not a central banker, or part of the Establishment. It is the monied elite of the Establishment going back to J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, Baruch, Schiff, Rothschild, Lazard, Warburg, etc. It was these monsters and their progeny that have been directing policies not only for their own enrichment, but for the enslavement of the masses.

As Carroll Quigley wrote, it was their goal to gain control of both parties to such an extent that the American people could "throw the rascals out", but never have a change in policy. They funded Woodrow Wilson into office and FDR into office, just as they funded and dirty tricked Eisenhower into office.

Policy remains remarkably constant between the two parties, b/c the two parties are really nothing more than seperate wings of the same Big Government Party. The dumbing down of American's that makes all of this possible was, and is, most certainly directed by the Establishment that controls both sides of the line of scrimmage.

If you had endless supplies of money, had no ideological bent beyond amassing as much power and control as possible, and had gained control of the money supply - wouldn't you move to gain control of the culture and political parties?? and wouldn't you protect yourself against anyone becoming a threat to your power?? That is exactly what the Establishment has been doing for these past 100 years; and, progressivism is just another vehicle that they've used to chip away at the Constitution and culture.

Now loosed from the chains of the Constitution, and the citizenry sufficiently dumbed down to do anything about it except cheer on their own enslavement, here we are now in 2013 on the brink of the final transition to global hegemony.

 

I'm not sure if we're really dumbed down that much. The average adult American today has a better education than Americans did 70 years ago.

We also have the benefit of more tools for learning than before. The internet provides easier access to a lot more information than even just 30 years ago.

Priorities have changed a lot over the years (and not all for the positive), but some progressive ideals aren't so bad. Integration was a good thing. Gay rights are a good thing. Being tolerant of immigrants is a good thing.

Where progressives falter is the same place where the right wing does. They try to implement policies that make decisions for people. That's where they cross the line.

Some of the people you mentioned were progressive in social ideals, but it's definitely not a situation where all the key players are like that. The Koch brothers definitely aren't progressive, for example. They have their own social agenda of controlling others, as does the Family (a political circle with heavy ties to evangelicals).

So, on the social side of things, I see the progressives messing with gun policy and things like drink size bans, while the religious fanatics harass gays and support things like the War on Drugs.

Culture, in and of itself, is a personal thing. The government should have no role in it. It's merely a matter of what people choose to gravitate to. If you don't like where culture is headed, find a private way of influencing that.