01.01.2021
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: joe biden "how i came to love the new world order"

  1. #1
    The ABBOTT
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    5,633
    Rep Power
    45

    Default joe biden "how i came to love the new world order"

    How I Learned to Love the New World Order

    Biden, Joseph R Jr.
    Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 23, 1992. pg.
    A13

    Abstract (Summary)
    Joseph R. Biden Jr defends his view that the Pentagon's new strategy which appoints the US as a sort of world monitor could render the US a hollow superpower. Biden explains why he reacted the way he did to the plan.


    ____________

    Counterpoint: How I Learned to Love the New World Order
    Biden, Joseph R Jr. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 23, 1992. pg.
    A13

    Imagine my surprise when a Wall Street Journal editorial appointed me dean of the Pat Buchanan school of neo-isolationism. My credentials? Believing that the Pentagon's new strategy -- America as "Globocop" -- could render the United States a hollow superpower. All agree we need the military capacity to defend our vital interests -- by ourselves when need be. The question is grand strategy. With the Journal's endorsement, the Pentagon has called for a Pax Americana: The U.S. should cast so large a military shadow that no rival dare emerge.


    American hegemony might be a pleasant idea, but is it economically, politically or even militarily wise? Bristling with weapons, we would continue our economic decline, while rising industrial and financial giants in Europe and Asia viewed our military pretensions with indifference or contempt.


    Defense Secretary Dick Cheney outdid even the Journal, dipping deep into the well of Cold War argumentation to accuse Pax Americana critics of thinking "America's world presence is somehow immoral and dangerous.
    " Why doesn't the Journal stop the namecalling, get its schools sorted out, and court an honest debate over America's proper role in the new world order?

    Pat Buchanan's "America First" preaches martyrdom: We've been suckered into fighting "other" people's battles and defending "other" people's interests. With our dismal economy, this siren song holds some appeal.


    But most Americans, myself included, reject 1930s-style isolationism. They expect to see the strong hand of American leadership in world affairs, and they know that economic retreat would yield nothing other than a lower standard of living. They understand further that many security threats -- the spread of high-tech weapons, environmental degradation, overpopulation, narcotics trafficking, migration -- require global solutions.


    What about America as globocop? First, our 21st-century strategy has to be a shade more clever than Mao's axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power also emanates from a solid bank balance, the ability to dominate and penetrate markets, and the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout.


    Second, the plan is passive where it needs to be aggressive. The Journal endorses a global security system in which we destroy rogue-state threats as they arise. Fine, but let's prevent such problems early rather than curing them late. Having contained Soviet communism until it dissolved, we need a new strategy of "containment" -- based, like NATO, on collective action, but directed against weapons proliferation.


    The reality is that we can slow proliferation to a snail's pace if we stop irresponsible technology transfers. Fortunately, nearly all suppliers are finally showing restraint. The maverick is China, which persists in hawking sensitive weapons and technology to the likes of Syria, Iran, Libya, Algeria and Pakistan -- even while pledging otherwise.


    The Senate has tried to force China's leaders to choose between Third World arms sales (1991 profits of $500 million) and open trade with the U.S. (a $12.5 billion annual Chinese surplus). Even though we have convincing intelligence that China's leaders fear the use of this leverage, the president inexplicably refuses to challenge Beijing.


    Weapons containment can't be foolproof; and against a nuclear-armed North Korea, I would support pre-emptive military action if necessary. But let's do our best -- using supplier restraint and sanctions against outlaw sellers and buyers-to avoid having to round up the posse.
    Why not an anti-proliferation "czar" in the cabinet to give this objective the prominence it urgently needs?

    Third, Pax Americana is a direct slap at two of our closest allies -- Japan and Germany -- and a repudiation of one of our panel1. Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? great postwar triumphs. For years, American leaders argued that building democracy in Europe and Asia would guarantee stability because democracies don't start wars. Now the Pentagon says we must keep our military large enough to persuade Japan and Germany "not to aspire to a greater role even to protect their legitimate interests.
    "

    How has our success suddenly become a threat? It hasn't, but the Pentagon plan could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By insulting Tokyo and Berlin, and arrogating to ourselves military stewardship of the world, we may spark the revival no one wants.


    Secretary Cheney says he wants the allies to share the burden on defense matters. But Pax Americana puts us on the wrong end of a paradox: Hegemony means that even our allies can force ever greater U.S.
    defense spending the more they try to share the burden!

    Fourth, collective security doesn't rule out unilateral action. The Journal says I'm among those who want "Americans . . . to trust their security to a global committee." But no one advocates that we repeal the "inherent" right of self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.


    Secretary Cheney says his plan wouldn't undermine support for the U.N. Who would know better than the U.N.'s usually understated secretary general? If implemented, says Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Pentagon's strategy would spell "the end of the U.N." Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? It envisages a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action -- but with a U.S. veto.


    Rather than defending military extravagance, the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador; and rebuilding a weakened and debt-burdened America.


    If Pentagon strategists and their kneejerk supporters could broaden their horizons, they would see how our superpower status is best assured. We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security.


    ---

    Sen. Biden is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's European Affairs Subcommittee.



    Quote Originally Posted by CharlesJones View Post
    Food For Thought, i don't even pay you any attention because i know you're a retard.

  2. #2
    crushed out heavenly Ghost In The 'Lac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    20,635
    Rep Power
    76

    Default

    I like Joe. He makes good points here.

    Anyway, a NWO couldnt be much worse than the facist states we are currently living in, it will probably be better.

    Bring it on, it sounds like a good idea to stop wars and such.


  3. #3
    PRODIGAL SUN NoSaidDate420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    39
    Posts
    580
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    nah fuck that. that man is a straight up devil.
    "We Agreed To Send One To Swim From Lost To Found."

  4. #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    O-Block
    Posts
    11,674
    Rep Power
    64

    Default

    Wolf in sheep's clothing.

  5. #5
    'The Fourhorsemen' TSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    40,012
    Rep Power
    164

    Default

    ok so what really is so bad about a 'new world order'
    you guys dont come off as pleased with the current world order?

    everytime someone uses the very common term new world order you assume they have scales. no joke.


    look at that sentence above. It looks retarded. but sadly it's true.
    This isn't about a Wun Werld Gubmbmhemtn but whats wrong with that idea?
    less war? ease of travel? more evenly distributed wealth?international pusseh?

  6. #6
    The ABBOTT
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blackula's pad
    Age
    56
    Posts
    25,749
    Rep Power
    83

    Default

    half of these people don't even kno what they are against.

    So now Biden is the devil, pretty soon Obama will be the devil. Whoever is in a position of authority is a devil to them.

    Cops, teachers, goverment official, the clerk at the gas station who authorizes your pump...
    ^^ #fake news

    Look eye, always look eye.


  7. #7
    'The Fourhorsemen' TSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    40,012
    Rep Power
    164

    Default

    they already declared obama was the devil cause he was a distant cousin of dick cheney (as are they)

  8. #8

    Default

    The NWO, this new conceptual global superpolice, does seem better than what we have now. I'm sure the best intentions are behind it. Less wars and distributed wealth. But you do realise everything great comes to an end and eventually down the line, some people are going to abuse it and do crazy things. How do you think they will convince EVERYONE that this tiny few will control all of the globe, no questions asked? Who decides what is unacceptable when democracy is gone completely? Freedom of speech will be gone. I rather live in a world where people have to earn their wealth, the idiots can make the mistakes and the true good people will correct all of humanity's problems instead of letting ONE government control it all. Something that small could never manage this entire big planet.

    The NWO making themselves known is to be expected and feared. Artistic minds have thought about it and warned how these people might abuse their power. Check out the movie "Fortress". The Japanese, who are lightyears beyond us culturally, often put these themes in their sci-fi fiction and films.
    Last edited by samtheseed; 01-22-2009 at 02:48 PM.

  9. #9
    sleepless in basedworld ALCATRAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,793
    Rep Power
    51

    Default

    im sorry but tha idea of one group of niggaz controlling everything on tha planet scares me.........just a little bit

  10. #10
    'The Fourhorsemen' TSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    40,012
    Rep Power
    164

    Default

    y? pussy?
    seriously?
    y? 1 group on niggas control your country so what's the big scare?
    and your american, odd are you'll get top dibs on shit pussy.

  11. #11
    sleepless in basedworld ALCATRAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,793
    Rep Power
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThaShaolinAssassin View Post
    y? pussy?
    seriously?
    y? 1 group on niggas control your country so what's the big scare?
    and your american, odd are you'll get top dibs on shit pussy.
    its got nothin 2 do wit me gettin top dibs if u got one group of people controlling the world then who is going to keep them in check? who do they answer to? their own courts?

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThaShaolinAssassin View Post
    y? pussy?
    seriously?
    y? 1 group on niggas control your country so what's the big scare?
    and your american, odd are you'll get top dibs on shit pussy.
    The US gov't hasn't produced much of an intelligent, cultured, unified country yet. For them to boss the entire planet would be a huge mistake. If there was an NWO, no one could overthrow them or say "We don't agree with that". If the NWO existed a few hundred years ago, we'd still be slaves, probably treated worse than ever, building spaceships or some shit for white people to go find other planets to destroy. Just because the NWO would create security, your freedom would be GONE.

  13. #13
    'The Fourhorsemen' TSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    40,012
    Rep Power
    164

    Default

    LMAO what the fuck are you talking about? the UN has been fighting slavery world wide where countries and cultures have allowed it because they're government wants it. Amoung other things thousands of other things.


    I dont want you guys to be dumb anymore.
    sometimes you have to have a thought, then THINK again?

    could uneducated slaves build space ships?
    would you really want forced labor to put together...your space ship?
    What is there to destroy in the planets we can possibly reach?
    If the whole world (that mattered) was against slavery by the time the US abolished it why would they be for it?
    Does this statement sound stupid, ridiculous, and/or undereducated?
    Who much will it cost to send every white person to space? there's hundreds and billions of them.


    Quote Originally Posted by speakonitgod View Post
    its got nothin 2 do wit me gettin top dibs if u got one group of people controlling the world then who is going to keep them in check? who do they answer to? their own courts?
    our own government has methods to keep them in check, why do you not think a world government wouldn't be the same way?
    you really think the whole world is gonna agree to have 1 guy from 1 country be a dictator of a country he's not from?
    i mean seriously?

    do you even see this whole thing as possible whatsoever?


    If the US was just a collection of states as opposed to 1 country would you feel more safe in a collection of states that can and will fight eachother constantly or 1 country and keeps them from being faggots?

    There would probably still be slavery in the south if the opposing viewpoints of the north was its own country.







    jesus, you guys really have to try to stop wasting intelligence of paranoia and fantasy. Im serious.

  14. #14
    MORRIS BLACK FAMILY Crookshank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    CLEVELAND
    Posts
    91
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    I am completely against the New World Order... The Illuminati wants people to go along with the general idea of the NWO... soon they'll have people being pro-elitism, a lot already are.
    "If you're frightened of dying, and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the Earth."

  15. #15
    'The Fourhorsemen' TSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    40,012
    Rep Power
    164

    Default

    what a fucking fag.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •