[Sureshot]

Originally posted by Digit
"many"? i'd guestimate that less than 2% of the worlds population has any real grasp of whats going on.

Yeah, I'd completely agree on that. It kind of makes me a little sad.

I console myself hoping that maybe it's relative, it might only be 2% but it's a 2% that are oft in positions to at least stimulate change if not directly cause it.

Originally posted by Digit
some oppose the idea of globalisation outright.

And are perfectly right to do so.

What is undeniable though is that the World is shrinking. Whether thsi automatically triggers this beast we call globalisation (i think i prefer internationalisation - globalisation I feel implies a degree of over riding control or direction on a pan nation basis, like an overarching ideal if you like) is another matter.

Originally posted by Digit
i dont see it as an idea that needs to be pushed. but i understand that by not proposing an alternative we may all have to endure the process of globalisation through the PNAC!!

And it is articles like this that may stimulate that debate

Originally posted by Digit
I'll be damned if i'm going to sit by and watch Neo-Conservatives take over the globe.

I'm with you brother. Who's going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes?

Originally posted by Digit
the proposal laid forth there does seem to me a tad "boringly unambitious", but it is a far far better thing than the Plan for a New American Century. It does actually address the global issues that cut to the very heart of inequality and also why many people are opposed to globalisation.

Here here.

I think some idea/perspective on what truly are the "global issues" needs to be gained by the current Western governance systems.

We cannot begin to solve the issues before we identify them.

Originally posted by Digit
can we wait until we get that cataclysmic uniting event from outer space? or do we actually need to really start searching for that global solution?

Simple. No. Yes.

Although there must be a stimulae. What that will be I can only guess.

Current favourite is disease, a more extreme SARs type event. Anything where "the shrinking planet" can be blamed. High speed travel, urban sprawl, blah de blah, yakety smackety.

Originally posted by Digit
The environmental/political clock is ticking, but is there enough time on it left? Could we cheat the clock and avoid our destruction without globalisation?

This depends on how you define globalisation. I would say the environment is one of the global core issues, not only for it's obvious importance but also on purely logistical basis legislating environmental issues locally with no global "plan" is a little pointless.

Kyoto and the US is my favourite example of this.

Originally posted by Digit
Is globalisation worth going for at all? if so, is it necessary to have, regardless of whatever form it may take? and if thats the case then wouldnt it have been better just to sit back and let Hitler have his vision? or the PNAC to have theirs now? Whatever form it takes when/if it comes, will we be able to iron out the creases and bumps later? or do we need to smooth things out before we attempt to have globalisation?

Hmm, now these are the 64k questions.

Again I think it depends largely on your def of globlalisation. Particularly the slightly cynical Hitler part. The Project for the New American Century on the other hand.... *breathes between teeth* ....I love there website, the very first paragraph offends with it's brutal our way or no way ethos.

Taken from the PNAC website
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

In the fateful words of Kurt Cobain:

"Hmm, it's pretty scary."