Posted on 03/05/2003 8:13:28 PM PST by sheltonmac
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 doen'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 God 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?
I've got a long record of standing up for the Constitution and what it means, and it pisses me off when some half-baked nitwit waves it in my face without even bothering to read it."
I find it interesting that you did not use the Constitution to support your "critique." Does the Constitution allow for Congress to pass the buck and grant war-making powers to the president? Does the Constitution endorse the practice of using the U.S. military to enforce the policies of multi-national coalitions?
"The President controls the armed forces, not Congress"
This statement shows your complete ignorance of the framers' intent. The president is not a king who has unilateral control over the military. Citing precedence for that kind of thing does not make it right.
This is what I find so amusing. You want war. Period. That's the bottom line. So, you will come up with any excuse to wage war. Can't support it constitutionally? No problem! We'll just wage war in the grand tradition of Korea and Vietnam.
Tell me--since no one else has even bothered to try making the case--how will our little crusade in Iraq make the U.S. safer from the kinds of terrorist attacks we saw on 9/11? Those hijackers did not use a "weapon of mass destruction." 3,000 lives might have been saved if the federal government was not so gung-ho about clamping down on our right to keep and bear arms. This is the government you want leading us into another undeclared war? The same government that refuses to even guard its own borders is going to make the world safe by taking out a guy halfway around the world?
Why can't you people see that if protecting the security of the U.S. was the only goal here, then Congress would have simply declared war on Iraq? In doing so, the president would have been granted his constitutional war-making powers, and we would have gone in and taken care of business. But Bush is being extra careful to be PC, making sure he exhausts all options with the globalists before acting. If he was truly putting our nation first, then he wouldn't dink around for some ridiculous Security Council resolution to pass.
Bush is a globalist. He honestly believes that enforcing U.N. resolutions is the proper role of the U.S. military. Doesn't that make anyone a little uneasy?
Save the demented, flap-doodle and just explain the meaning of the term.
What does "New World Order" mean?
On that I will wholeheartedly agree with you
The New NWO can now get on with the work of freeing the planet from this velvet communist monster...not by direct confrontation, or by trying to persuade the frightened masses, but rather by simply starting a new club, and inviting other nations to join: not in a shotgun wedding, but in a compact of mutual support when needed; and a respect for individual God-given rights (given short shrift in the UN Charter). The UN can just whither on the vine...when its parisitic governments can no longer subsist on foreign aid foisted from the West.
But is this any better? I would argue your point of mutual support when needed. Look at how many even on FR treat the idea that France and Germany have a mind of their own. Their national interests are not the same as the national interests of these United States. While some would call for France and Germany to remember how we helped them during and after WWII, I would argue would that help have been necessary if we hadn't interfered in WWI? Since history can not be changed there will be some animosity in Europe that while not deserved in so much of a sense as expected and understood from where that animosity comes from. As for foreign aid foisted from the West, cut it off. Entirely. I would admit for me there would be two exceptions (Britain and Israel) but for the rest be done with it. Washington warned of these entanglements over 200 years ago and instead of taking his advice in the 20th century time and time again we jumped in feet first to 'help' someone.
The problem that we face now is that these United States have to decide to not make the problem worse by continuing in these entanglements and what would happen from that decision. Would there be unrest, possible wars? Most assuredly so. However, what are we doing by continuing to get involved on a global level? Surely nothing more than staving off the inevitable. This nation of states can't prevent wars anymore than I could claim myself President tomorrow. It can put off what will happen, as history has shown, sooner or later, but it cannot stop it.
I'm sorry if I have gotten too cynical or fatalistic on the outlook in this reply. But it has to stop somewhere. Or else when another leader gets into office that may not have the morality of Bush, we'll be sold down the river in the name of peace. And unfortunately, we'll have too many precedents to prevent it
Or stick your head in the sand--and hope the world doesn't decide to kick your now-upraised posterior.
The former is almost certain, based on historical experience, to get us banged up and bruised once in a while.
The latter merely hopes that the evildoers will be content to not attack us because we stay out of their way.
History does not support the latter hypothesis. The worst case would be that our nation would give up its sovereignty a piece at a time, attempting to appease the unappeasables of the world. "End diplomatic ties with Israel or else!" "End your trade with Taiwan, or else!"
A more likely scenario would be that a few nations find themselves fighting a bloody Niemollerian war against a foe that they coddled for too long.
We will have evildoers in the Presidency from time to time, whether or not we pursue an activist foreign policy.
And they frankly would not give two s**ts and a holler over the presence or absence of "precedent" for selling us down the river, if that was indeed their intention.
Bush believes that Resolution 1441 should be enforced by the U.S. military. It doesn't logically follow from this belief that Bush believes that enforcing all UN resolutions is the proper role of the U.S. military.
And that's exactly what I'm saying. At present, change the situation, don't cope with the issue. These United States have the capability to make that change. However, expansion of 'our' form of government isn't necessarily the way to do it? How is putting 'our' form of government throughout the world going to help? How is that any different than what communists did for decades? What? Our way is better so it must be right? The Republic is dead, we live in a socialized democracy where the general public is forced to rely on a centralized bureaucracy and that's somehow better? Don't know if you've taken a look around sunshine, but the bureaucracy is straining at the seams. This isn't a personal view, it's factual. This nation of states, unless changes are made in our lifetimes, is going to crumble from within. Of course, the Founders had the solution to centralized government but hey we know where that went now don't we? Half of all conservatives worship at the man's feet and the other half are afraid to say anything for fear of being called a racist
The former is almost certain, based on historical experience, to get us banged up and bruised once in a while. The latter merely hopes that the evildoers will be content to not attack us because we stay out of their way. History does not support the latter hypothesis
So Empire for all is it? History also proves that every time a Empire got 'banged up and bruised' eventually that Empire fell, either through economic means or military means from an outside power. Rome was once the most powerful Empire in the world, but what took them down again? But of course, without a centralized government, the power in Washington doesn't have the capability, the need, or the want to expand its military might much further than its borders. But by your statement of the latter you are basically calling the thought process of the Founders foolish? I guess the documents they wrote are worthless as well?
History does not support the latter hypothesis. The worst case would be that our nation would give up its sovereignty a piece at a time, attempting to appease the unappeasables of the world. "End diplomatic ties with Israel or else!" "End your trade with Taiwan, or else!" A more likely scenario would be that a few nations find themselves fighting a bloody Niemollerian war against a foe that they coddled for too long.
Well unfortunately history does not support your 'banged up and bruised' hypothesis. Please point to me an Empire that is still in existence that at the height of its power was considered impregnable. You can't. History tells us that all Empires, good or bad, fall under their own weight. Your pie in the sky dream of 'America forever' sounds much the same as 'every road leads to Rome'.
We will have evildoers in the Presidency from time to time, whether or not we pursue an activist foreign policy.
Of course we will. However, if those 'evildoers' (by your vitriolic tone I assume you mean 'Democrats') know the limitations instead of having precedence to build on, if sovereignty is attempted to be relinquished it would be quashed in Congress. However, that would mean that the majority of our leaders had actually read the Constitution, understanding that the President was never meant to be much more than a figurehead
March on Hamilton. You have your national bank, your centralized government, and the 'elected king' status he so wished for is starting to jell
Whether or not we agree that Iraq poses a serious threat, I would like to think that those claiming to stand for conservative principles should at least be able to agree that the way Bush is going about this is all wrong. If Saddam is a serious threat to the U.S., and if the only way to eliminate that threat is to launch a pre-emptive strike, then Congress should have declared war and finished it. Forget all this nonsense about seeking U.N. approval, building a multi-national coalition and passing Security Council resolutions. The government acts for the people of the United States. Period. That is all Congress and the president are authorized to do under the Constitution.
But I guess declaring war and acting unilaterally in the best interests of our nation--and our nation alone--is a lost tradition. "Conservatives" have evolved and matured. Now, even they think holding the government to its constitutional limitations is something of an antiquated notion.
Whew! I feel much better now. As long as he only enforces SOME of the resolutions that makes it constitutional.
In early January, I listened to a speech (on TV)in the Franklin Hall (either in DC or Philidelphia) by President Bush #41. He made three referrals to the New World Order. None of these could be taken to mean "the Berlin War had come down, the Soviet Union broken up, and Saddam out of Kuwait to name a few."
If I had time I would search back thru all of my posts on FR and find the CNN link for you. I did make a post about his speech and his use of the phrase "New World Order".
How do you propose accomplishing that without dominating other terriroties? Keep in mind that dominating other territories is not limited to military action.
I don't know. It's concept that should serve as an overarching goal guiding our foreign policy, and not necessarily an agenda that can be implemented , it seems. It's a utopian ideal, certainly, that would be difficult to put into practice.
What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan compliments the mission, but obviously we can't militarily invade every nation on Earth.
Perhaps the more democracies that spring up through intervention, the more the oppressed nations will rail for their OWN freedom.
I just think if we have sight of the goal, we know what to do in each individual situation.
FReegards...
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.