Remember Bush's NWO?

[PainTrain]

New World Order: that's what is now occurring in the Middle East. I'm sure many have already realized this, but it's something of an epiphany for me.

I can vividly remember Bush Sr. uttering that term and I think if he were to have served an additional term we would have seen then what we are seeing now. It's almost difficult to grasp that GW so effortlessly pick's up the NWO ball exactly where Sr. dropped it. Tot to point any fingers at who's fault 9/11 was but GW and his buds must have recognized what an opportunity that presented to justify this imperialist thrust into the gut of those darned Muslims.

I certainly don''t advocate what Islam has been twisted into, but based on it's present fanaticism (since the inception of Israel pretty much) I can see how that would be seen as permanent inability to receive democracy without the use of force; and that's exactly what we have. Add to that the fact that the entire region holds the leverage of our nations lifeblood, crude oil, and you can see how that would piss off those with the imperialist agenda.

And if you think my usage of the term "imperialism" is inappropriate, please read the definition of the term as presented by the American Heritage Dictionary: "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. " Now whether you agree with the conflict in Iraq or not, what we have done undeniably falls squarely into the definition of imperialism.

Clinton, for all his moral irresponsibility, if not improved our dominance and influence over global power stage, at least did nothing to lessen it. And this was done through primarily diplomatic means. This is in stark contrast to the approach the current administration has taken. Are we truly any safer as a nation now that we've conquered Iraq? I don't think anyone would suggest so. All we have done is fan the flames of Islamic fanaticism, and the terrorism employed by the fanatics can never be mitigated with an army. That's like fighting an infection with a stick; you're only going to make it worse not to mention it's pretty stupid

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: PainTrain
New World Order: that's what is now occurring in the Middle East. I'm sure many have already realized this, but it's something of an epiphany for me.

I can vividly remember Bush Sr. uttering that term and I think if he were to have served an additional term we would have seen then what we are seeing now. It's almost difficult to grasp that GW so effortlessly pick's up the NWO ball exactly where Sr. dropped it. Tot to point any fingers at who's fault 9/11 was but GW and his buds must have recognized what an opportunity that presented to justify this imperialist thrust into the gut of those darned Muslims.

I certainly don''t advocate what Islam has been twisted into, but based on it's present fanaticism (since the inception of Israel pretty much) I can see how that would be seen as permanent inability to receive democracy without the use of force; and that's exactly what we have. Add to that the fact that the entire region holds the leverage of our nations lifeblood, crude oil, and you can see how that would piss off those with the imperialist agenda.

And if you think my usage of the term "imperialism" is inappropriate, please read the definition of the term as presented by the American Heritage Dictionary: "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. " Now whether you agree with the conflict in Iraq or not, what we have done undeniably falls squarely into the definition of imperialism.

Clinton, for all his moral irresponsibility, if not improved our dominance and influence over global power stage, at least did nothing to lessen it. And this was done through primarily diplomatic means. This is in stark contrast to the approach the current administration has taken. Are we truly any safer as a nation now that we've conquered Iraq? I don't think anyone would suggest so. All we have done is fan the flames of Islamic fanaticism, and the terrorism employed by the fanatics can never be mitigated with an army. That's like fighting an infection with a stick; you're only going to make it worse not to mention it's pretty stupid

The epiphany you experienced is no less shocking to you than it was to the rest of those who experienced it.

These people plan for the long term. But they don't plan the details. This is why I believe they are in the mess they find themselves in now. They planned since 1991 to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam and YES it is an imperialist action.

But they failed to plan the details. What to do after the invasion when the real work began.

But it's OK - for them. We get to foot the bill. They get a foothold in the middle east, more military spending and some lucrative government contracts for the military suppliers who are allied with the civilian Pentagon advisors set up in 1985 by the Reagan administration.

And don't think the WTO agenda isn't part of the NWO plan.

New world order for them, new world screw up for us.

 

[Moonbeam]

Welcome to the real world.

 

[BOBDN]

Some more info on the "New World Order" and its origins.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."


From PBS' Frontline: Excerpts from 1992 draft, "Defence Planning Guidance."

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: PainTrain
New World Order: that's what is now occurring in the Middle East. I'm sure many have already realized this, but it's something of an epiphany for me.

I can vividly remember Bush Sr. uttering that term and I think if he were to have served an additional term we would have seen then what we are seeing now. It's almost difficult to grasp that GW so effortlessly pick's up the NWO ball exactly where Sr. dropped it. Tot to point any fingers at who's fault 9/11 was but GW and his buds must have recognized what an opportunity that presented to justify this imperialist thrust into the gut of those darned Muslims.

I certainly don''t advocate what Islam has been twisted into, but based on it's present fanaticism (since the inception of Israel pretty much) I can see how that would be seen as permanent inability to receive democracy without the use of force; and that's exactly what we have. Add to that the fact that the entire region holds the leverage of our nations lifeblood, crude oil, and you can see how that would piss off those with the imperialist agenda.

And if you think my usage of the term "imperialism" is inappropriate, please read the definition of the term as presented by the American Heritage Dictionary: "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. " Now whether you agree with the conflict in Iraq or not, what we have done undeniably falls squarely into the definition of imperialism.

Clinton, for all his moral irresponsibility, if not improved our dominance and influence over global power stage, at least did nothing to lessen it. And this was done through primarily diplomatic means. This is in stark contrast to the approach the current administration has taken. Are we truly any safer as a nation now that we've conquered Iraq? I don't think anyone would suggest so. All we have done is fan the flames of Islamic fanaticism, and the terrorism employed by the fanatics can never be mitigated with an army. That's like fighting an infection with a stick; you're only going to make it worse not to mention it's pretty stupid

The epiphany you experienced is no less shocking to you than it was to the rest of those who experienced it.

These people plan for the long term. But they don't plan the details. This is why I believe they are in the mess they find themselves in now. They planned since 1991 to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam and YES it is an imperialist action.

But they failed to plan the details. What to do after the invasion when the real work began.

But it's OK - for them. We get to foot the bill. They get a foothold in the middle east, more military spending and some lucrative government contracts for the military suppliers who are allied with the civilian Pentagon advisors set up in 1985 by the Reagan administration.

And don't think the WTO agenda isn't part of the NWO plan.

New world order for them, new world screw up for us.

In the long run is better for most people. Consider how controlling Islam (now in its insanely mucked up form) virtually no womens right ect... In the future it'll be better for most people. Now of course I am expecting you to say that its a immoral. Well, depends on how it turns out. Looks like we will have to wait and see. I for one dont want to be OPEC's bizatch when the Chinesse start getting more cars

 

[BOBDN]

So now we invaded Iraq for women's rights?

That's a new position. Especially from a right wing Republican administration which suppresses women's (and other) rights right here at home.

 

[PainTrain]

It's infuriating to see that our democracy is being replaced by facism. That's what were projecting; not democracy, but imperial facism. You think I'm off base and you talk to some of the old vets and see what they think about this madman in office. Could also be that they despise Rumsfeild, but soemtimes it seems that Bush is simply a reflection of Rumsfield and Bush Sr.

The US is not immune to the effect of NWO. In fact we are just as subject to as the Middle East. If a person questions the motiviations of our elected (sort of...) President then you are unpatriotic, despite the fact that those same people offering those accustions were just as critical about the last guy in office. If a person questions the vailidty of the war we started in Iraq, you are also deemed unpatriotic and unsupportive of our troops. wtf?! How people make the jump from "I don't agree with sending our troops to Iraq to kill and be killed" to "soldiers suck" is beyond me. But those are just two examples of this facist subversion taking place. People are going to be scared as hell when they realized how we pissed away our liberties for the sake "he's good people."

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Tabb

In the long run is better for most people. Consider how controlling Islam (now in its insanely mucked up form) virtually no womens right ect... In the future it'll be better for most people. Now of course I am expecting you to say that its a immoral. Well, depends on how it turns out. Looks like we will have to wait and see. I for one dont want to be OPEC's bizatch when the Chinesse start getting more cars

Renewable resources.

Instead of being enablers for our nation's addiction to oil the government could be fostering research into renewable energy resources. Then your oil fix wouldn't be necessary.

But that wouldn't really fit in with an administration where the VP still won't divuldge the substance of the talks he held with members of the energy industry he still won't name. Talks that allowed the people who would benefit from the policies to form energy policy for the nation.

 

[Red Dawn]

Keep on Rocking in the Free World!

 

[Bigdude]

Are we truly any safer as a nation now that we've conquered Iraq?

Yes! Clinton's years of inaction in the face of Islamic terorism, left us vunerable. Bush is taking the fight where the evildoer's live.

 

[UltraQuiet]

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

Sounds like a great plan.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Bigdude

Are we truly any safer as a nation now that we've conquered Iraq?

Yes! Clinton's years of inaction in the face of Islamic terorism, left us vunerable. Bush is taking the fight where the evildoer's live.

Yet there are attacks daily on American Interest in the Middle East. Hmmm sounds like we are much safer...not!

 

[PainTrain]

Originally posted by: Bigdude

Are we truly any safer as a nation now that we've conquered Iraq?

Yes! Clinton's years of inaction in the face of Islamic terorism, left us vunerable. Bush is taking the fight where the evildoer's live.

Umm... the evil doers aren't evil according to their perspective. You think these guys are doing this terrorist BS for the sake of being evil? They are doing it for the sake of their religion, which is exactly the basis of justifacation you seem to propose for our being inolved the way we are in the Middle East. "Evil doers"... that's simply a matter of persperctive. The reason they employ terrorism as a tactic is because it is the only way they can inflict any kind of retribution for what they see as "American evil doers committing great sins against Ala." They're "taking the fight to the evil doers" as well.

Unless one party completely anhialites the other through genocide you are never going to combat fanaticism from either side with violence. We stay on this path and we will find ourselves within Israel's position in that not just Palestine, but huge chunks of the entire planet will be our mortal, unyeilding enemies. Sounds like a great place to live, even more of our neighbors will want us dead.

The only way this Anti-American fanaticism can ever be addressed is through diplomacy. It may take many years, but it could never be any less effective then the Imperial warmongering tit-for-tat game we're playing now. This Iraqi BS has done absolutely ZERO in effort against the war on terrorism (which is an absolutely rediculous term I might add.)

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

Sounds like a great plan.

Bush thought so too until recently.