Boacvc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 628 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1936 times:
This is terrifying.
In looking at a number of articles over the past few days, it is becoming alarmingly clear that the United States are only just getting started with Iraq. Thomas Donnelly of the influential and ultra conservative 'American Enterprise Institute' speaks of a 'new world order' defined by America and created by force with little international input (unless you agree, then you're in). Countries on the list include Syria, Iran, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia. This is apparently supported by un-named sources in the Bush Inc. administration.
Am I alone in thinking that the lunatics running the asylum? Anyone care to guess the reasons that will be put forward to justify each of these newly required invasions?
Heavymetal From Ireland, joined May 2015, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1873 times:
George HW Bush coined the phrase 'New World Order' over a decade ago. His son is inventing it in ways he only dreamed about.
'Taking over the world' is not the plan, if only because the neoconservatives of the Bush Order are quite uninterested in 80 percent of it...(what driven ex-oil industry exec now Vice President would have any use for, say, Sri Lanka or Mali?)
While it's fun for shivering libs to envision the Marines and 3rd Armour called upon to 'Shock and Awe' anyone and everyone at the far end of the Bush family Christmas card list, that reality is a bit overdramatic.
The real long term threats of the Bush plan will include things like the establishment of a ruling corporate oligarchy, dissolving the lines between business and government. Use of the military, as we've seen this past month, will be just one of the many tools to be set in motion for economic purposes. Charades like 'values' and 'freedoms' will be the mere opiates for the masses, fronts for new capital ventures and investments.
The media...now almost entirely owned by vast corporations whose loyalties lie to no concept of fairness or common sense, but to their profit margins...will perpetuate these frauds and mistruths. Careful and expensive control of messages will continue to allow single-side issue saturation. While you pine about outlandish, borderline sci-fi scenarios like American shock troopers ransacking civilization, I worry about the equally as grandiose but far more likely reality of Americans losing their ability to judge. Spoon fed info in stunning and powerful mediums leads to lazy minds. It's clear they're getting lazier.
And finally the New World Order is decidely fast and decidely black and white. Debate is equated with hesitation and ambiguity, two enemies to constant and abrupt forward motion. Issues are broken down to 'them and us', a ploy perfected since the death of the Post-World War II Order, as the unity created by facing down such obvious evil dissolved to nothing. We have now in the United States something we've really never had since our creation....two idealogical extremes that truly, deeply despise one another, in the future even more so than outside influences. That hate will cloud the future direction of this superpower more and more (how man have said, rightly in some cases, that the Left's hatered of Bush clouded the benefits of this conflict....and suppose we wake up in two years to a Democrat as President? What will the Right's first effort be? To take their proper role as loyal opposition...or immeadiately, as if God Himself gave them the job, go looking for another stained dress?)
The New World Order will thrive on that conflict. Because in the end, the conflict will be a sideshow, distracting those who might otherwise have time to think......and thus potentially distract from the ultimate course, goal, desire. Wealth. Power. Winning. At all costs.
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1842 times:
And in order to provoke second thought in those who disagree with a particular viewpoint, I would like to refer to several lines from the diary of a German pastor, who met his death in a Nazi camp. They read roughly as follows:
When the Communists were taken away, I did not react, because I did not share their ideas.
When the Jews were taken away, I was silent, because they were strangers to me.
When the trade union activists were taken away, I kept silent too - I did not care about them.
When they came to take me away, there was nobody left to speak up in my defence.