Posted on 10/01/2001 11:33:31 AM PDT by Paul Ross
If pro-globalization forces think that they can spin these attacks as an argument for further globalization, I think they are in for a big surprise.
Up to a point, I wouldn't condemn Barnett -- it is hard to separate out effective defense from empire -- but here, I think he oversteps the boundary between the two.
I've never been so surprised to see (BARF Alert) attached to an article as I am here. What part of Barnett's argument is so despicable? Globalization isn't coming, it's here. The huge drop in markets around the world because of Sept. 11 should be an indication of that.
His only controversial statement, as far as I can tell, is our "inevitable" position as global policeman. He doesn't articulate how that may be manifested, so I don't see how you can hang him out to dry for that.
The article may be run-of-the-mill for you, but surely for some people this will come as a major surprise.
While fear and dislike of government may be excessive in some quarters, if the government doesn't in some sense "belong to" the "American people" and isn't "accountable to" them, great and deep distrust of government is justified, and may be the only sensible alternative.
What are we to make of GWB's talk of American unilateralism or sovereignty in the last election? Was that so much blarney? I suspect it was, and more to the point, the author of this piece says as much.
Those who might risk death for their country and its freedoms may take a much dimmer view of dying for globalization and the world market.
What would happen if this article received wider circulation? It might influence people's attitudes towards the regime.
But maybe you are right. Certainly, we'd have seen more of a response to this if people were really opposed to globalization or surprised that our government and public and private institutions are its prime promoters.
Until September, the Bush administration clearly focused national security strategy on Asia in general and against China in particular. This was a huge mistake in the making, but the danger has not yet passed. As the United States pursues this war against international terrorism, we must be aware that the West and Asia can either come together or be driven apart by events in the Middle East. Remember this: as far as globalization is concerned, China is not the problem; it is the prize.
China is unilaterally draining US capital as it becomes our defacto off-site manufacturing base. China wishes to become the principal super-power, and the ruling communist party leadership intends to supplant U.S.'hegemony'. To the extent there is 'globalist' enhancement of China's position it is potentially a serious challenge to our own nation's position, and a long-term security threat. Not to mention the short-term threat to our loyal and helpful ally, Taiwan. Or the continuing massive espionage operation by China, against our national security assets, our national science labs and the like...all extremely grave issues which don't even appear on this guy's radar.
The Chinese are even now, STILL aiding and abetting terrorist regimes with arms sales (i.e., Iraq), and nuclear proliferation (Pakistan). This guy mischaracterizes the Chinese 'prize'. Hence, I assume he is either a panda-hugger, or a formerly Soviet mole. And any such, in OUR Naval War College needs firing. Turn-coats and enemies of the U.S. Constitution need not apply to be in the U.S. Navy, and definitely should not be on OUR payroll.
E.g., such rabble and nut-jobs as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Ronald Reagan, eh?
if the government doesn't in some sense "belong to" the "American people" and isn't "accountable to" them, great and deep distrust of government is justified, and may be the only sensible alternative.
Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address put it best describing the whole relationship of government and people in America's experiment in Self-Governance, when he said that "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, should not perish from the earth." I don't dispute your point, just that it in fact seems to be rather half-hearted and equivocal. "May be the only sensible alternative."??? How about domestic revolt (instead of mere 'distrust'), if compelled by tyranny? Tyrants whose sole opposition is composed of 'distrust' among their slaves have nothing to fear. Citizens who defend liberty, and Constitutionally-limited government (so crafted as to restrain government intrusions on said liberty) are what tyrants would fear. Lately, tyrant Hitlery has been equating american dissent to her train of illegalities and governmental abuses as being like Osama Bin Laden. This pox on humanity will be in the Senate 6 more years. What a travesty.
Like Quigley, this innocent lays out the agenda in all its denominational splendor.
"First, we need to expand dramatically the dialogue between Wall Street and the Pentagon regarding how globalization changes our definitions of national security. Over the past several years, the Naval War College has collaborated with the broker-dealer firm Cantor Fitzgerald in conducting a series of Economic Security Exercises examining scenarios such as a terrorist strike against Wall Street, the Year 2000 Problem, and Asia?s future energy needs."
The Military-Industrial Complex surely cannot protect even its own. Those who do not abide their oaths to preserve and protect the Constitution, and the citizens of the United States, first and foremost, are traitors. Our first line of defense must be to de-weed them from positions of influence.
Admiral Crowe, and his brethren, were and are socialist. They intentionally socially engineered intelligence into dysfunction. They cynically sell-out to the highest bidder; money doesn't talk, it screams.
That has been "expanding" for many years now. Ike knew it. What's this yahoo want, a Joint Office Bldg.? Maybe it could be shaped like a 'pentagram'.
I'm actually glad to see this kind of thinking from such a source getting a small public airing, as it will point out to some few individuals that the "paranoia" about the NWO has more basis in fact than they previously supposed.
fyi
As Usual, I ignor new-fangled thangs. The Old Comma works just Fine, best I can tell.
At least your flag to me worked on Self Search :-)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Clearly, President Bush didn't mean it.
Winding up a speech Thursday, Bush said America will be tough and resolute to defeat terrorists so future generations can live in peace. "And there is no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail," the president said.
His audience at the Labor Department did not react. Bush, known to make occasional verbal mistakes, continued on in a positive vein: "Failure is not a part of our vocabulary. This great nation will lead the world and we will be successful."
AP-ES-10-04-01 1719EDT
Go figure.
I fail to see why.
A regime that receives kudos for "informing consciences" (and quote Scripture on TV!!) as it announces federal funding to perpetuate ESCR can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants as long as folks feel free to strike a blow for liberty by further crushing themselves with personal debt.
That is what is so unreal about him.
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.