The New World Order: Bush, Clinton, and the Pentagon

[Matt W]

Dieval:- I'm not rejecting it outright, I just don't see it as practical. Like I said, a lot of these countries that are now semi-crippled fought for centuries to gain independence from European masters - and most have only gotten there in the past 50 years, at most! For the US to even try to take over would awake shouts of 'colonialism' and all sorts! Seriously, you're talking a huge task, and your military as it stands is not up to it - 'specially when you consider that most of these countries will fiercely resist attempts by the 'white man' to come back in - they'd rather be free and poor than ruled by someone else again. It's a very, very condescending attitude to take - 'oh, you can't manage, so let's do it for you' - when they've barely been going a generation - give them a chance!

Also, how do you think public opinion within the US will stand for it? Care to think of the reaction of the African-American lobby?

[Dieval]

Dieval:- I'm not rejecting it, I just don't see it as practical. Like I said, a lot of these countries that are now semi-crippled fought for centuries to gain independence from European masters - and most have only gotten there in the past 50 years, at most! For the US to even try to take over would awake shouts of 'colonialism' and all sorts! Seriously, you're talking a huge task, and your military as it stands is not up to it - 'specially when you consider that most of these countries will fiercely resist attempts by the 'white man' to come back in - they'd rather be free and poor than ruled by someone else again. It's a very, very condescending attitude to take - 'oh, you can't manage, so let's do it for you' - when they've barely been going a generation - give them a chance!

Also, how do you think public opinion within the US will stand for it? Care to think of the reaction of the African-American lobby?

I'm not advocating taking over these countries at gun point - become part of our empire or else -, more like offering them a better way of living..

[Matt W]

Ok...fair enough! Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Still, we're talking 'benevelont colonialism' here, I guess...and there's still going to have to be a lot of diplomatic dancing to make sure that this would be acceptable to all concerned - including the international community. Frankly, I don't see the current administration as having that skill, in the current climate. Give it 2/3, maybe even 5 years of sustained projects like the proposed 'Marshall-esque' plans for S-E Asia, and maybe a few places would give it serious thought. Now? Doubtful.

[Sonart]

What exactly are you referring to by these statements?

Our intervention in the Balkans and Operation Desert Fox in Iraq.

but for you to dismiss the idea and believe that some 3rd world countries, who's people live in poverty with no chance of getting out if, are some how better off than if with their current laws(or lack there of) is just mind boggling

Somalia taught us, or should have, the limits of what we can do militarily, no matter how altruistic our intentions or how much better off people who live in poverty might be.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Do any of you here believe "Democracy" is a system we should strive to be? Would any of you define us as a democracy? Why, why not?

[Lou Minotti]

How does this refect the current Bush Doctrine when it was written durring the Clinton years?

Because they are on the same team and wrok for the same people. Don't forget, it's Bush 41 that called for the QUOTE (as in I am quoting George Bush), "New World Order".

[Starboy]

Do any of you here believe "Democracy" is a system we should strive to be?

Not pure democracy.

Would any of you define us as a democracy?

No of course not.

Why, why not?

Because under our system not everything is decided by a simple democratic vote. All of us would like to think that there are some things, like our own personal rights that are not up for a vote. That the majority should not oppress the minority just because they are the majority. That might does not make right. As Jefferson said in his inaugural speech:

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Beware pure democracy and the oppression of the majority and beware anyone that tells you "This is a Christian Country" because such a statement really means "This is only a country for Christians".

Starboy

[Osborn F Enready]

That quote by Jefferson more describes our system today, than the Constitution, so how do you say this is NOT a democracy?

The points you made, were about how we are supposed to be, not how we are now.

There are laws on the books right now, that violate every single right in the Constitution. The checks and balances as described, do not apply. The limitation of government agencies, does not apply. The limitation on taxation, does not apply. The entire structure of this system, DOES NOT APPLY.

Please explain how one thing can be two things simultaneously, when they are exact opposites?

[bishop]

what "new world order"???

a new world order, where iran and north korea are building nukes, where countries invade one another unilaterally, where genocide is rampant across the world, where japan is slowly beginning to expand its military prowess, etc...

maybe i'm missing something - where's the new world order in all of these examples? one would think that they'd be opposed to this kind of disorderly conduct.

[Matt W]

Osborn - Correct me if I'm wrong (as I most probably am), but a democracy, in it's purest form, was as per the Greek City-States. Now, if my understanding is correct, the citizens voted on every issue of importance, after a debate. This is very different from electing representatives to make your decisions for you, isn't it? Plus I'm sure the architects of democracy never invisaged the sweeping powers that modern governments have over their citizens.

[Lou Minotti]

what "new world order"???

a new world order, where iran and north korea are building nukes, where countries invade one another unilaterally, where genocide is rampant across the world, where japan is slowly beginning to expand its military prowess, etc...

maybe i'm missing something - where's the new world order in all of these examples? one would think that they'd be opposed to this kind of disorderly conduct.

Ever heard the expression, "Order out of Chaos"?

[Starboy]

That quote by Jefferson more describes our system today, than the Constitution, so how do you say this is NOT a democracy?

I am not sure what you are trying to get at. But if I am all wrong ignore this. Jefferson understood that no piece of paper could ever stop the majority. That the majority would always be able to do what it wanted in the end, "the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail". He was trying to point out to the majority that just because you are the majority doesn't mean that you are right (even by your own principles), "that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect". And that if the majority could not see its way clear to recognizing and abiding by these principles then, "to violate would be oppression." I think this point doesn't resonate today as it did then because for those people it was not all that long ago that they were oppressed. Maybe we need to become oppressed again so that we may understand what it means to protect our own liberties.

The points you made, were about how we are supposed to be, not how we are now.

Yes.

There are laws on the books right now, that violate every single right in the Constitution. The checks and balances as described, do not apply. The limitation of government agencies, does not apply. The limitation on taxation, does not apply. The entire structure of this system, DOES NOT APPLY.

I agree. We have not kept the republic.

Please explain how one thing can be two things simultaneously, when they are exact opposites?

We have forgotten our own American values and have allowed ourselves to be confused by the values of special interests of religion and commerce. The problem with any concentration of power is it makes it easy for those who would bend that power to their will to identify it, learn its ways and then use it to their own ends. Those that suffer are usually the common person.

Starboy