[billbears]

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.

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

[Poohbah]

You have two choices: either try to cope with and change for the better a world where, at present, a lot of people assume that America is wealthy not because of many generations of hard work, but because we cut a deal with Satan...a world, in the memorable phrase of Ralph Peters, "where the Flintstones meet the Jetsons, and the Flintstones don't like 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.

[sheltonmac]

"Conservatives" have no problem with a NWO as long as they think they are in charge. National sovereignty is something to which only they are entitled--and even then they can't decide what the term "sovereignty" means or how to defend it. In this case, enforcing U.N. resolutions will help us keep our sovereignty. Sure, it will undermine everything upon which this country was built, but at least we'll get to feel like we're making some headway in the "war" on terror.

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.