Globalization is inevitable. And if the human race can keep from obliterating itself in the process, free markets and democracy shall spread like wildfire. Nations of the world should begin preparing for the new challenges and celebratory things that we will face.
Workers of the world, Get Educated
The best way for workers to avoid being exploited is to be educated. And the nations of the world should aid all those that desire by removing any barriers not based on merit, proficiency, or perseverence. Educated workers can get better jobs and if they can't (because everyone is educated) at least they can intelligently work for their own best interests, not being swayed by fat unions or despaired by exploitary capitalists. Get educated, unite when necessary, move up when you can.
Goodbye War, Hello Terrorism
I advocate the only kind of system that can make globalization work and bring an end to war: global federalism. Quit having wild fantasies about the inherant evil of nations joining together. These fantasies only serve to perpetuate war, exploitation, hatred, etc. You work for the Beast while claiming to be fighting him.
The more decentralized the better, but all discoveries of import should be seen as for the good of all. Just as states would act within the US. California and Texas might be at odds occasionally, but they do not blow each other up. The world could learn from this. States compete but in the end hope for the prosperity of all states. Nations compete to destroy and weaken one another. To hell with nations.
With all nations having interest in each others' success, war will be unnecessary. All current methods of war will be obsolete. The new enemy, as we are previewing today, will be those who have nostalgia for the days of war and use violent force to get it back, murdering civilians and disrupting the world economy. The current military adjustments we need to make for this alleged "War on Terror" will serve us well in the long run, so long as we truly turn it into a war on terror and do not use it as an excuse to carry on "conventional" warfare.
Another bonus: the obsoletion of nuclear weapons. But not completely. The technology should be redesigned to fight threats from space. I'm thinking asteroids, but I guess if there are hostile aliens we'll be ready. And by this point, as a democratic planet, it will be ethical for us to consider colonizing space.
Open But Secure Borders
Since economic prosperity will inevitably be somewhat related to geographic location, it must become easy for people to move wherever they need to. Borders should be open to all. However this necessitates increased security. Without the need for war-based military, this should not be a problem. Though this will make movement across borders slower, it should be made up for by attempts to make other aspects of relocation simple.
What are We Waiting For?
Obviously we can't enact all these things today. But we need to start moving in that direction. Whatever we can do, we should?
And am I the only person who agrees with the neoliberal reasons for the war in Iraq (spreading democracy) and against the neocon reasons (alleged "national security")? On one hand we need to keep globalization moving at a slower pace to allow room for cultural adjustment, but on the other we should start preparing ourselves.
And for those that continue a war on multiculturalism, give it up. You are the reason why this is such a difficult process, whether you are Christian, Muslim, or a Sun Worshipper. Learn to tolerate. Liberty means allowing everyone their freedom and everyone access to choices, not sheltering your fragile belief systems in paper bomb shelters.

I fully support nations coming together....as long as the system they do it under is constructed in our image.

The current systems are not. Non-democracies have no right to exist.

It is working to weaken the beast in the long term though. Not that I agree with it, but that is the reason. It doesnt mean we like the beast.

The world could learn a lot of things from us.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I am probably the neo-con ideal (except for that whole gay thing), and I have long supported aggressive foreign policy against non-democracies. I simply think that the ones that pose a threat to us should be first in line. That makes sense to me.

It doesnt mean I dont want to see the non-threats destroyed too. I just want to see the threats destroyed first.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

JavaBlack, sign me up.
Regarding war, you'll have a hard time ending it. These days, war is too profitable for people to stop finding reasons to wage it.

Modern wars are not waged over profit. They are waged over defense. And the reason for needing defense is idiology.

Almost no one, on either side, supports war for oil for example. So far I've only seen one person who has openly stated we should go to war over oil.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I agree with Sadistic that non-democracies should not exist, but I'd rather see them destroyed by their own people. I would prioritize based on the strength of rebellion within a dictatorship rather than threat. I distrust a lot of information about threat because it reflects the interests of the war State and in the end (not really the end, but... oh, you know what I mean) I feel this powerful interest will be our greatest enemy. And I also feel that if we are to be a beacon for democracy, we must make information more accessible and the people more autonomous.
We also need to update our military strategy YESTERDAY. There have been way too many civilian casualties in this war. Civilian casualties may be inevitable in some circumstances but they are still unacceptable. If they cannot be stopped, they must be minimized. Bombings are not a good weapon for dealing with terrorists and insurgents who live amongst civilians.

Neither you nor I know for certain the real reasons why modern wars are waged, although we are fed many things. Unless you have 100% trust in politicians?

Regarding "defense," the word has been transformed. I don't think that we are defending ourselves by invading other nations who have not been involved in attacks against us. It's illogical to say the least...sorta like "waging war to secure the peace." Military actions should be based on real events, not on imaginations of what could happen in the future.

Regarding profit, in my opinion it has a great deal to do with the military decisions of our politicians. A very large chunk of the American economy lies in "defense," and half of the economic recovery in the last four years has been due to the "defense" industry. Bullets and bombs don't make money sitting on shelves.

There is no interest that supercedes defense. The military is subordinate to the civilian population...they cant act without our consent. In Iraq and Afghanistan, they had our consent.

So far no one has shown me any alternatives that would have worked better, even in hindsight.

The fact is that we are far more concerned about civilian casualties than we have ever been in the past. How many civilian casualties do you think there were in, say, Vietnam for example?

He have gone through a great deal of expense and have passed up obvious avenues of advancement in our campaigns for the sake of keeping civilians from being blown up. Yes, I think we deserve credit for that. How many previous "empires" would have done that?

All civilian casualties are unacceptable. The alternative is simply more unacceptable.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Yes we do. Because our leaders could not wage war without our consent. If we are giving our consent, then we know why the war is being waged. That seems like common sense to me.

The politicians did what we wanted them to do. Do you deny this? Do you think the majority of Americans were against giving war powers to Bush? If so, what makes you think that?

"Defense" as opposed to "conquest". We are trying to remove a threat to us, therefore it is defense. The fact that it is pre-emptive is irrelevant.

So, by your argument, we should no longer accept "self defense" as an excuse for muder, right? After all, if they wernt harmed, it wasnt really self defense, right?

You mean the politicians we elect into office?

Do you believe the American Masses supported the war for this reason? If so, why?

How much money do you think we actually make off war? Please cite your sources.

Because the argument seems to be that war COSTS us money. Yet liberals like to claim it makes us money. Both cant be right. Which is it?

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

But what if our leaders gave false and misleading information?

But what if our leaders gave false and misleading information?

So, you believe that certain countries are threats to us based on what politicians tell us? See, that's where the whole pre-emptive thing falls apart. It leaves too much room for propaganda.

I edited my post to include "military" before "actions."

Do you believe that corporate money has less influence on politics than the general public?

No, but I think that many in Congress noted the boost it would give their campaign contributors in the "defense" industry.

"We" didn't make money. The "defense" industry did. Yes, war cost us money, meaning the general public. But war is very profitable for certain sectors of American business, which contribute a whole lot to politicians in government.

Are you starting to see a pattern?

The claim is not that war makes money for society. It makes money for a few powerful special interests. It also creates the usual evergrowing bureaucracy that never wants to have anything removed. As war becomes less frequent, the military-industrial complex is weakening. The theory of its extreme power was more useful back in the days around WWII. Today it is not such a powerful theory, though C. Wright Mills' analysis of "crackpot realism" is still pretty relevant (for business and bureaucracy as well as the Pentagon), even if a little off.
But overall war is costly and unwanted. It stands to reason that a few special interests cannot dominate the will of the people.
But this does not hold so true in other countries.
I do prefer to keep the military from gaining any more power than is necessary. The military should shrink and grow at the will of the people and not threaten the people when it is itself threatened.