What do you think about the Bush's foreign policy, is it right or wrong?
Burnsys said:isn't truth absolute?
scienceguy said: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.
Not really - this New World order started in 1946 with the Marshall Plan.Smurf said: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 love it when people argue via ridicule and expose themselves.Burnsys said:I love when they repeat like parrots....
russ_watters said:Then could you elaborate on exactly what Bush's new world order is?
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...?Burnsys said:It's his father dream.....
russ_watters said: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...?
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.Burnsys said: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.
Exactly the same happened in almos every country of latin and central merica.
russ_watters said: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.
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.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 problem, if you wanna call it that, is that that's not really their goal. The problem isn't really a problem because it's just the front they're using to stop the people from realising what they're really doing, which is really attempting to control the world as the 'American Empire' and ensure it's permanence as the world's leading power.schwarzchildradius said: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.
so would I, too bad no one in power is trying to do that.loseyourname said:Wow, that new world order sounds terrible. I'd hate to live on a harmonious planet of cooperating nations free from tyrrany.
Did you even read that first link of yours? If the US gov't is trying to build a global empire, they're doing a pretty lousy job - they've been going backwards for 50 years.Smurf said:
Bilal said: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 .
This would be the infalliable "They're worse so we're OK" argument.Zlex said:Bilal,
Those arrayed against 'us' in Iraq are not just attacking 'us.' They are attacking Iraqi citizens. They are killing innocents and telling the world, 'if you don't give us what we want, we will continue to kill innocents, so ***** up.'
Given the leverage that tactic provides, it is an excceedingly small fringe of **** fighters that are generating the headlines.
Now, you, I, each of us, have to examine as best we can the motivations and tactics of those involved in this struggle and choose.
Smurf said:They are civilians, these are civilians killing other civilians. They're not another Foreign enemy to deplore, this is in fact a civil war, stop looking at it like Us vs. Them. That's not it, technically you could even call them criminals.
Smurf said:It's funny how you talk about Iraq and compare it as if it's already the 51st state.
NORWICH, Vt. -- A driver accused of running down and killing a Vermont state trooper is now facing murder charges.
Eric Daley, 23, of New Hampshire, was charged with second degree murder at a hearing Monday.
Drug charges were also filed against him.
Daley pleaded not guilty to lesser charges in June.
Police say Daley was running from police when he hit and killed Sgt. Michael Johnson in Norwich, Vt., in June.
Johnson was laying down spike strips on Interstate 91 to stop Daley. Police say Daley then took off and was captured a couple of days later in Pennsylvania.