This is why we will wage war on Iraq. It's an "Old World Order" ideal.
"We will put a boot up your ass"
Posted on 03/06/2003 8:17:57 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
When Bush the Elder went to war against Iraq in 1991, it was all part of his vision to create a "New World Order." The security of the United States was a secondary concern. In case anyone doubts this, just take look at what Bush himself had to say following the Gulf War:
Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order...A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations. The Gulf war put this new world to its first test, and, my fellow Americans, we passed that test.
Now, Bush the Younger is picking up where his father left off—sacrificing U.S. security and sovereignty in the name of "world peace."
Stop for a minute and think about the president´s desire to wage war against Iraq. Like his father before him, he is going out of his way to appease the globalists. Out of one side of his mouth he says that our nation is "facing clear evidence of peril" and that we need to act in our nation´s best interests. But out of the other side he says that we should "take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously."
This is puzzling. If the Iraqi threat is so great, then why should we worry about a few meaningless resolutions? Does the U.S. have a right to defend itself or doesn't it? Is the U.S. a sovereign nation or not?
Very few conservatives are speaking out about the dangers of going into Iraq to enforce U.N. policy. We can debate all we want about the threat Iraq may or may not pose to the U.S., but in the end we are sending young men and women overseas to die in defense of a New World Order.
Of course, the president is not the only one to blame. Congress is just as complicit by refusing to function as a check on executive power.
Rather than act as the only governing entity with the constitutional authority to declare war, Congress decided to pass a resolution that hands that responsibility to the president. Members of the House and Senate essentially gave Bush a blank check that he can cash whenever he wants.
The resolution passed by Congress identifies Iraq's refusal to comply with a U.N.-mandated cease-fire, and it addresses Iraq's "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations." It also references Bush's commitment to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge."
Carefully avoiding any mention of the existence of a state of war between Iraq and the U.S., the resolution authorizes the president to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Now if the pro-war advocates are right, and the U.S. is in danger as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, wouldn't it make more sense to simply declare war and be done with it?
Rather than put the Constitution first, Congress and the president have neglected their respective duties. Their actions tell us that the security and sovereignty of the United States are not primary concerns. In essence, the U.N. Charter has trumped the U.S. Constitution.
Even if the president were to break away from the U.N. now, the damage to our nation's credibility has already been done. By first seeking international support for military action—action that our government insists is vital to our national security—our elected officials have admitted to the world that the U.S. is either incapable or unwilling to act unilaterally in its own defense, and our nation has been weakened as a result.
An ominous sign of that weakness can be seen in the president's recent foolish decision to place up to 2,000 Marines under British control in the Middle East. Is that the kind of leadership we need?
Our politicians have forsaken their duties and their fellow citizens. They swore an oath before G-d and country to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to enforce U.N. resolutions in an attempt to legitimize some New World Order. Are we willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters for their globalist cause?
Very few conservatives are speaking out about the dangers of going into Iraq to enforce U.N. policy. We can debate all we want about the threat Iraq may or may not pose to the U.S., but in the end we are sending young men and women overseas to die in defense of a New World Order.
If Iraq is has attacked us via funding terrorist organizations, then declare war. Otherwise, as the author points out, we are going to war to enforce UN mandates, not to protect our country or serve revenge on those who attacked us.
Follow the money...ye shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
I don't agree with that assessment at all. We are not fighting for abstract mandates. We are fighting for enforcement of specific resolutions that represent our own national interests. We have chosen--wisely or not--to use the UN as a forum for gaining the kind of international support we would desire even if there weren't a UN within which to get it. All the while, President Bush and our allies have asserted and continue to assert their right to take military action with or without UN approval.
The United States chooses to participate in the UN.
In reading the thread about this yesterday, it seems as this is a claim and may not be true. A missle anywhere near our airspace would have had jets scrambling. "We" know when any ICBM is launched.
Now, I am in no way saying North Korea is not a threat, and I certainly believe they are more of a threat than Iraq.
You are free to disagree. I honestly believe there will be no "war" without UN support.
Total BS...he went through the UN because the damn Democrats demanded that he do so. Anyone remember the "Rush to War" argument that was so prevalent a few months ago? The argument this week is that he is taking too long and support is waning as a consequence. Now the argument is that he is trying to appease the globalists? Isn't that what they demanded in the first place? They need to make up their frigging minds already!
As for the tin foil theory...
George Bush's New World Order
©1997 by Gerry Rough
Conspiracy theorists who believe that there is a coming New World Order will often cite George Bush's 'new world order' speech as evidence of the conspiracy. President Bush enunciated his version of the new world order in his now famous State of the Union speech in January, 1991. This was not the first time that President Bush uttered the phrase 'new world order.' There were other times as well, but since this time it was in a State of the Union speech, its importance to the conspiracy theory movement cannot be underestimated. Just what was it that George Bush meant by the use of the phrase 'new world order' in this speech? Let's take a closer look at exactly what he said and the context in which it was given. As it turns out, the phrase was used at the beginning of the speech, so let's start right at the beginning to get the full context:
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, members of the United States Congress. I come to this house of the people to speak to you and all Americans, certain we stand at a defining hour. Halfway around the world, we are engaged in a great struggle in the skies and on the seas and sands. We know why we're there. We are Americans - part of something larger than ourselves.For two centuries we've done the hard work of freedom. And tonight we lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity.What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea - a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peaceand security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's future.
So, we find the phrase 'new world order' is not said in the context of global government after all, but in the context of nations being drawn together for the purpose of peace, security, freedom and the rule of law. It would be completely dishonest and foolish to state that they are mutually exclusive, they are not. Certainly common cause can lead to common government. But let us also be honest about the statement as it is given. The statement freely acknowledges the diversity and sovereignty of nations and the common cause of all to seek peace.The phrase 'new world order' could mean anything here. As is usual with any State of the Union speech, the speech was long on rhetoric, short on any real substance. The only real definition that can be said of the phrase here is the definition that is given:
where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law.
So the first use of the phrase isn't really all that it's cracked up to be. What about the second time the phrase is used in the same speech? Bush reiterates:
The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fufill the long-held promise of a new world order - where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance.
So in this context it is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the first. This time the collective resistance theme is reiterated, and the theme of unrewarded brutality enters the picture. The rub here is that if the first is succesful, the second will follow. Seems obvious to everyone except the conspiracy theorists.
Frankly, where's the beef? It would seem as though all the fluff among the conspiracy crowd turns out to be just that. Perhaps if we all just wait for the sun to darken and the sky to fall, the conspiracy crowd can then be taken seriously. After all, the New World Order controls that too, right?
This is why we will wage war on Iraq. It's an "Old World Order" ideal.
"We will put a boot up your ass"
North Korea is by far, the greater problem.
You state it, so it must be true./sarcasm
Its quite funny when freepers post such things like their words are a valid substitute for addressing the point presented.
That's a separate question from the one I highlighted (why we go to war--to protect our interests or to enforce UN interests.) Anyway, we shall see.
Which is actually the point of the story! We are choosing to bring in the NWO, and some are actually giddy over it. Blackbird.
Just one point of clarification: Something openly discussed can not be properly labeled a "conspiracy" theory.
I don't think the U.S. can fight two wars at once.
I have heard reports that 2-3 missile strikes in the mid-east could severely damage U.S. troops, if this were the case would not the whole world go into shock and have U.N. and Nato troops "come to the rescue?"
Would that not in effect usher in the NWO?
Just thoughts.
I've had very similar thoughts also.
I think we all should give serious thought to who exactly is setting us up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.