The former NWO is Marxist-based, and this falling away from us in this late conflict is conveniently separating the "us" and "them": making things perfectly clear that what is important to the UN is control of markets, people, and places; they'll deal with the devil to aquire power...damn freedom. They view freedom in the context of bread that they can provide for the starving, unpropertied, disarmed "workers" of the world.
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.
And as to the perception that Bush is running afoul of Constitutional precedent, I'll give you the benefit of my own doubts; but there can be no illusions that the machinations of the socialists, greengoobers, idiots, and Dems in OUR OWN COUNTRY--given the opportunity--would hobble, nay, cripple this president , to prevent him from taking any great part of the planet out from under the boot of the UN.
I give GW a pass on this one. What have we to lose?
This goes for NATO, too.
Vive Liberte.
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