What do you think about the Bush's foreign policy, is it right or wrong?
It all depends on who you talk to and what side you're on; right?
Accually it depends on which 'truth' you believe, Right, Left or Radical
isn't truth absolute?
Facts are absolute, if they can be found. "Truth" is in the eye of the believer.
Facts arn't even absolute. Facts are just a peice of the puzzle known as 'truth'.
America can never withdraw from Iraq, we're already in it too deep and once we leave, it'll provide for a safe haven for terrorists to terrorize the world.
I disagree, I think there's a strong possibility that Militant groups may ultimatly be ousted by a rising dictator (probably supported by the west).
But the fact is, this is something new for the US, bush is preping the world for his new world order and iraq is the testing ground. I think these next 4 years are going to be very interesting, good or bad, very interesting.
I love when they repeat like parrots....
Not really - this New World order started in 1946 with the Marshall Plan.
I love it when people argue via ridicule and expose themselves.
No no russ thats not what I mean, a new world order did start in 1946. and now this new new world order is starting now. it's new you see.
Then could you elaborate on exactly what Bush's new world order is?
It's his father dream.....
'Toward a New World Order'
A transcript of former President
George Herbert Walker Bush's
address to a joint session
of Congress and the nation
From the National Archives
September 11, 1990
Mr. President and Mr. Speaker and Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, fellow Americans, thank you very much for that warm welcome. We gather tonight, witness to events in the Persian Gulf as significant as they are tragic. In the early morning hours of August 2d, following negotiations and promises by Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful Iraqi army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within 3 days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression. ....
...We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.
The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose, if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination, it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world. America and the world must defend common vital interests -- and we will. America and the world must support the rule of law -- and we will. America and the world must stand up to aggression -- and we will. And one thing more: In the pursuit of these goals America will not be intimidated.
Vital issues of principle are at stake. Saddam Hussein is literally trying to wipe a country off the face of the Earth. We do not exaggerate. Nor do we exaggerate when we say Saddam Hussein will fail. Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors -- neighbors who control the lion's share of the world's remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won't. ...
...Once again, Americans have stepped forward to share a tearful goodbye with their families before leaving for a strange and distant shore. At this very moment, they serve together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians, and Africans in defense of principle and the dream of a new world order. That's why they sweat and toil in the sand and the heat and the sun. If they can come together under such adversity, if old adversaries like the Soviet Union and the United States can work in common cause, then surely we who are so fortunate to be in this great Chamber -- Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives -- can come together to fulfill our responsibilities here. Thank you. Good night. And God bless the United States of America.
1989 - President Bush gave the commencement address at Texas A & M University on May 12, he which he stated "Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order....Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations." --Arizona Daily Star, May 12.
"Time and again in this century, the political map of the world was transformed. And in each instance, a new world order came about through the advent of a new tyrant or the outbreak of a bloody global war, or its end." Feb 28, 1990---this quote is six months before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August.
"When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders." -Jan 16 1991
A quote from an invitation sent to Republican contributors throughout the United Stated in May 1991: "Now, our President faces greater tasks. And he must have help from like-minded men and women in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate who can help him establish the "new world order" he seeks."
1992 - August 26: The New York Times publishes "The World Needs an Army on Call" by U.S. Senator David Boren (Rhodes Scholar 1963, CFR member, and member of "Skull and Bones") in which he states: "In the aftermath of World War II, President Truman wanted to empower the United Nations to create a new world order....Richard Gardner proposes that forty to fifty member nations contribute to a rapid-deployment force of one hundred thousand volunteers that could train under common leadership....It is time for us to create such a force....The existence of such a force would go a long way toward making the "new world order" more than just a slogan."
1993 - Jan 13: Confirmation hearings are held for CFR member Warren Christopher's nomination to be Secretary of State. He and Senator Joseph Biden discuss the possibility of NATO becoming a peacekeeping surrogate for the U.N. "to foster the creation of a new world order." That is just what happened in Bosnia.
1993 - April 21: General Colin Powell receives the United Nations Association-USA's Global Leadership Award, and he remarks: "The United Nations will spearhead our efforts to manage the new conflicts (that afflict our world)....Yes the principles of the United Nations Charter are worth our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." !!!!!?????
1993 - May 4: New CFR president Leslie Gelb (formerly and editor at The New York Times ) says on "The Charlie Rose Show" that "...you(Charlie Rose) had me on (before) to talk about the new world order....I talk about it all the time....It's one world now...."
1993 - July 18: CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in The Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA: "What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system....a first step toward a new world order."
1995 - July/August: In the CFR's Foreign Affairs, prominent CFR member Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. exclaims: "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."
2001 - "There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this (9-11) disaster to carry out ... a new world order." (Gary Hart, at a televised meting organized by the CFR in Washington, D.C. Sept 14.)
etc. etc. etc...
Hey! i found the WMD!!!! Over there...
Thanks for the source, but I don't see how that is much different from WWII/the Marshall Plan: beat back tyrants, create stable/prosperous democracies. Smurf...?
sorry, you mean, beat back democracies, tyrant, and any type of goverment who don't share US economic and military interest and puting, other tyrants, dictatorships and puppet democracys, wich aren't stable neither prosperous.
Just take Argentina for example......my country. since the marshal plan, 2 democracies overtrown by the cia, 2 military dictatorships backed by the us placed. 30.000 death, since 80' four "Democraticaly" elected goverments (Puppets of USA and the IMF), Result:
Water services, Controled by foreing corporations
Comunications Services, Controled by foreing corporations
Oil explotation and distribution, Controled by foreing corporations
Bank and credit system, Controled by foreing corporations
Food industry. Controled by foreing corporations
Transport services, Controled by foreing corporations
60% poverty, 30% Starving... 150.000M of debt.
Exactly the same happened in almos every country of latin and central merica.
American murdered since the occupation around 100000 Iraqi civilians. Their old puppet regime (Saddam) murdered 300000 Iraqi (even not all civilians). I think Saddam still worse than American … lets wait another to years , when the Iraqi victims became more than 300000 … may be they will accept tow withdraw partially leaving several large military bases, puppet dictator regime (another modified Saddam) and large security group willing to murder any Iraqi who oppose the new government .
That's the difference though, that's how it was before iraq. CIA orchestrated coups and rigged elections, small invasions. Thats how it was before, this is the first time that the USA is accually building a government in a foreign country with their own troops with half-decent news coverage.
Interesting date for Sr.'s announcement:
September 11, 1990
11 years to the day and Jr. becomes the new hero. Doesn't that open the door to some wild conspiracy theory nonsense!
I disagree russ, I think there are some big differences. First off, Hussein was a client of Bush Sr. and you do not have to look very hard to find the collaboration between that administration and Saddam. HERE is a link to provide you with some info. There is also a nice picture of Rummy shaking hands with Hussein as he was gassing the Kurds.
Now Jr.s grandfather Prescott also had Hitler as a client way back when there was an economic depression and
alcohol prohibition. For this I will refer you to
Kevin Phillips who has done some pretty extensive research on the Bush Family/Dynasty. Of course you can always go and have a look at the unauthorized biography sponsored by the LaRouche campaign back in '92, unfortunately it is loaded with political bias though it is well researched and chuck full of facts.
And as for the business dealing between Jr. and the bin Laden family, well I would hope you know some of that by now.
So your equivalence falls flat and truthfully you need to be more skeptical of the politicians because, guess what, just about all of them are liars and thieves. :surprised
OH YEAH, presently I think we need international collaboration on Iraq in order to bring about some "legitimacy" to an already illegal war. Even then I have serious doubts. We'll probably leave like we did in 'nam.
Problem is, W didn't put together a significant number of allied powers to come anywhere close to the New World Order that his father envisioned. He doesn't respect the rights of the weak, or share a vision with Gorbechev, or understand how his father managed the crisis. There's no new world order in W; nothing new, and very little order.
Separate names with a comma.