48 hours on the edge of a New World Order

[alaric]

Within the next 48 hours the United States and Britan will begin their invasion of Iraq. The coming of this invasion will bring with it a chilling New World Order. Our world is about to forever change, again.

The 9/11 attack on the WTC signaled the emergence of a new threat to American Freedom, international terrorism. This new threat would prove one of the most elusive foes the US has ever faced. What we did not know at the time was that a much greater threat would soon emerge, this time from within our own government.

In the hours after the attacks, while most Americans were still wandering around in a stunned silence, the Bush administration was already taking steps to ensure justice would be done. Recent documents have shown that Bush made the decision to invade Iraq just days after September 11.

This, combined with the discovery of forged documents that the US provided the International Atomic Energy Association alledging Iraqi attempts to buy Nuke Technology from South Africa, leads me to believe that the American People have lost control of their democracy. They now have a president who completely believes that his crusade against the "evil doers" is God's work.

One man alone dictates the course this nation will follow. The checks and balances have failed. The constitutional protections have failed. The only other polictical party powerful enough to take on Bush's Administration is factionalized and leaderless.

This one man, this relic from the Age of Kings and Crusades, is now about to set the disturbing precedent of pre-emptively attacking a nation based on concerns that it might be a threat. This is a clear break from traditional American Foreign Policy. The Americans of the past didn't start fights, they finished them. Wether or not this action is justified is now a debate for future historians to argue. The fact is, if the US continues to travel down this path, it's list of enemies will only grow while it's list of allies dwindles.

These days, it's not so hard to believe the old conspiracy theories of an "invisible hand" that governs the fate of the world. There is clearly more going on in the world today than meets the eye. Bush Sr.'s talk a decade ago of a New World Order has finally come true.

These are just some thoughts I've had recently, I hope they can offer you some perspective on recent events...

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Yeah, as bad as Saddam has acted...he's an evil dictator, it is expected of him.  On the other hand there are many questionable actions on the part of the Bush administration, between the aforementioned forging of documents trying to provide proof, to the patriot act, to the unproven and often denied link between Al Queda and Saddam, Bush is not going about this in a way that shows good intentions.  He is going about it in a way that shows impatience and a mad desire for war.  This is why I don't trust him or his position on this war.  I am truly worried about the state of the US, and I am showing it with action by moving to Canada whenever I get my documentation this summer.

[jn.loudnotes]

Maybe I'm just young and irrational, but I can't help but feel a certain sense of disconnect from all of this.  I'm not really sure why - I know people who've been called to duty, I read about advancements every day, yet somehow I don't quite feel personally threatened.  Likewise, when terrorists attacked in New York, I never really felt like my life was in danger.  Somehow though, I feel a greater sense of trouble.

Maybe not in my life, or those around me, but I feel like we as a people are idling.  It seems odd to me that a country that boasts so many wonderful freedoms and ideals can still have so many problems.  And yet we wage a foreign war of aggression while so much is ignored at home.  I don't fear a new world order as much as I fear the continued complacency of the American people, or perhaps the human race in general.  There have been so many great theorists with brilliant ideas to safeguard the well-being of all, yet none ever seems to work.  There will always be sufferring, so why cause more of it?  Or worse, stand back and watch as others do - in your name.

I'm just rambling a bit.  It's frustrating to me to be able to do so little to combat things I believe to be wrong.  I don't want to be just a passive letter writer, or even a faceless protester.  I wish I or someone I could have faith in could be the one to make the decisions - but if those decisions rest on the will of a people as dull as what I see now - there seems to be little hope.  

Ultimately, I too will either forsake the system like Bondo, or accept it as millions do without thinking.  Is it ever possible to break it?  When I hear patriotic fervor today it rings hollowly to me - like the echo of nazi salute in years gone past.  There no longer seems to be any individuality in love of ones country - when loving the actions of that country are a singularly antithetical thing to do.  Again I ramble - but alaric and the late hour inspire me to say something. . .maybe my thoughts are worthwhile too.

The United Nations Association of the US sponsored a high school essay contest recently which I entered.  It discussed the legacy of Ralph Bunche, one of the UN's greatest statesmen.  He was a genius, undoubtably, and averted numerous conflicts which have left a lasting impact of peace.  Yet today he is virtually unknown - in a world where we wage war.  It seemed very ironic that the UNA-USA would hold such a contest - whose message supports peace - even as its official position advocated war.  If the United States acts without full UN approval, I fear the demise of that body, and then a world where I would truly be afraid to live.  A place where a US passport abroad would be like a death sentence.

Lately I've been balancing a few thoughts.  A part of me, that which loves the ideas behind this country, might perhaps want to serve someday in the foreign service, the UN, or some other such position.  However, I love the world even more than my country.  I wonder how many people can truly say that?  And I wonder.  In the near future, will it be in the best interest of the world to support the United States?  If it were not for the current state of affairs, I would wholeheartedly say yes - we are the superpower that must set the example.  But if that example is not set, then what?

Today I read a column in the newspaper by Molly Ivins.  Unfortunately she tends to be ignored a little too much because she can be slightly too pedagogical.  However, she has the power to genuinely scare me.  So often she raises an alarm I never see repeated - a problem unheralded by the media - even as my same newspaper devotes pages to a single dying girl, or found girl, or lost girl.  Enough of the pitiful little girls - when will the people ever learn to make decisions about the world as a whole?  Ivins quoted a statistic saying that 42% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein bombed the WTC.  This is the world we live in. . .

What else?  Why is the loss of 3000 Americans the galvanizing issue of our time, when twice that many die daily at any myriad of other events.  Starvation, disease, war.  What is it about America that has to be invincible?

Maybe I've rambled too much.  Respond to alaric, respond to me, Bondo, just talk about these things.  Buccaneer in particular, but to all of you - is anyone really wrong?  Eventually we all desire the same things - it's a shame people can't agree on better ways to go about them.  Also to Bucc - if you have read this, please either ignore it completely, or respond to the gist of it.  I'm quite certain there are individual statements that may be misstated, or even wrong.  Don't waste your time analyzing every line you disagree with.

[tasty]

I think the scariest thing about all of this is the sociointellectual climate of common America. People really seem to be getting into the whole "Un-America" wave, and bashing of France and Germany is becoming a common conversational topic. People honestly seem to believe that it is not only the duty of every American to agree with the administration, that it is also the duty of the world to do so. I'm getting so tired of being smeared in the mass media as un-patriotic or un-American. Recently a Florida congresswoman proposed that America go to France and dig up the remains of US soldiers that died there in World War 2 because France "didn't appreciate them". Customs officials at US borders and airports have been regularly turning away anyone that they believe has dissenting beliefs, even going so far as to directly question people as to whether they support US action in Iraq or not as the basis for their judgment. Our civil liberties are rapidly disappearing, and the government is watching over its citizens with increased scrutiny. I am not willing to make these sacrifices in freedom to "fight terror". You can be damn sure I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure people vote for someone besides Bush in the next election. He was right in his campaign promises when he said that he was a uniter. So far he has succeeded in uniting almost the entire world against us.

[*(SPU) mono]

just fyi, it will most probably be 72 hours and not 48 after bush's speech tonight (it has to do with insurance coverage, cynically enough; if you don't give your citizens, embassy personnel etc 72h to leave a region after a declaration of war, insurances won't pay).

not that it'd make it any better though.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

One man alone dictates the course this nation will follow. The checks and balances have failed. The constitutional protections have failed. The only other political party powerful enough to take on Bush's Administration is factionalized and leaderless.

Alaric, I do think this one statement is premature.  There are more checks and balances to be played out.  Bush is only allowed to act for so long without Congress giving it's official OK.  I haven't seen Congress do it yet.  Bush can attack Iraq without consent, but he can't actually go to war without their approval.  

On top of that, while there are many in America (especially here) that think it's a bad idea, there are also a good many people in America that think it's the right thing to do (and I'm not debating right or wrong here about that).  According to the polls I've been seeing, the checks and balances haven't even failed at all, since a slight majority seems to still think going to war is better (unless the polls have changed from the last I saw).

[jn.loudnotes]

Bucc - nothing against you, just a curiousity here.  What is the difference between attacking Iraq and going to war?  Who draws the line?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Also to Bucc - if you have read this, please either ignore it completely, or respond to the gist of it.  I'm quite certain there are individual statements that may be misstated, or even wrong.  Don't waste your time analyzing every line you disagree with.

Loudnotes, really, stop telling me what to do.

When I hear patriotic fervor today it rings hollowly to me - like the echo of nazi salute in years gone past.  There no longer seems to be any individuality in love of ones country - when loving the actions of that country are a singularly antithetical thing to do.  

Loudnotes, what you exclude here is all the thinking, logical people that disagree with your opinion on the war.  You are comparing all of them, and even me, with the Nazi's.  Based upon what?  Who in America has been silenced in their protest?  You say there no longer seems to be room for individual expression of patriotism, but I ask where is your proof of this?  What intolerance have those Americans protesting the war faced?  Is it any worse then the name calling (and other treatments) they've done to the Americans supporting Bush? Is it?

It seemed very ironic that the UNA-USA would hold such a contest - whose message supports peace - even as its official position advocated war.  

Why ironic?  Does everything have to be black and white?  Does the wish for peace mean that violence must never be considered?  Ignore Iraq for a moment.  Are you saying that no war or act of violence could bring a greater peace then avoiding the war in the first place?  Sometimes, you need to use violence to bring about peace.  Think about this, if you could go back in time, and kill Hitler, do you think it would have made a difference?  Do you think it would be the right thing to do?  If you said yes, then you accept that violence is a necessary evil.  And if it is, then it shouldn't be ironic that the UN or USA wants peace, even while preparing to act with violence.

If the United States acts without full UN approval, I fear the demise of that body, and then a world where I would truly be afraid to live.  A place where a US passport abroad would be like a death sentence.

Do you really believe that?  It sounds like quite the exaggeration to me.  Is any Iraqi given a death sentence based upon his passport?  They attacked Kuwait, without UN sanction.  Any Russian have that problem?  Loudnotes, most governments act without UN approval.  The UN is almost impotent, which is one of the problems faced by both sides.  If the UN had been more forceful with Iraq over the last decade, we wouldn't be in this spot either.  The UN couldn't (or wouldn't) stop Iraq from ignoring it.  The UN also doesn't control the US or UK or Spain.  The UN can't order the US to not go to war.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

However, I love the world even more than my country.  I wonder how many people can truly say that?  

How many would want to is another good question.  What makes loving the world better then loving a country?  

In a few years, you'll be old enough to find a country that fits you and move there.  And you should, by all means, live there.  It may be the US, it may not be.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Nothing wrong with countries being different and having different opinions (as long as they don't force their opinions on others).  There are places in this world that I consider a shit whole.  There are other places which I think are wonderful.  I've chosen to live in America, because it fits me.  I think it's better then the rest of the world.  That's my opinion, and I don't see loving the world more then this country being an asset, something to be sought.  I see it as another opinion.  

What else?  Why is the loss of 3000 Americans the galvanizing issue of our time, when twice that many die daily at any myriad of other events.  Starvation, disease, war.  What is it about America that has to be invincible?

Invincible or secure?  Part of why we are a nation is to protect ourselves from foreign threats.

Why can't we be effected by it?  When I was your age, AID's was very new to the scene.  It was the galvanizing issue.  It had people on both sides, arguing about it, and it's morality.  

It's a galvanizing issue because there was no sense to it, and we were unprepared for it.  Why should starvation be a galvanizing topic?  Do that many people starve in America every day?  Do we not already make efforts to end it?  Does not America give more in charity then anyone else?  Same with disease.  Money, time and effort are being spent.  Same with crime.  Same with all those other things.  But terrorism, that's something that is unusual for Americans to face.  That's something that American citizens have no control or effect on.  We can't take a pill and stop terrorism.  We can't give more food to Africa and slow it down.  Because all those other things that kill Americans, we have some degree of control.  You can use a condom, make safer cars, not fly, not eat red meat, blah blah blah.  You can't stop a terrorist like that.  As soon as you make any stand, you piss off the people that are on the other side of the issue.  What's to stop them from using terrorism?  Only one thing, fighting all terrorism.  Making terrorism not work, and not an attractive option.  That's it.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc - nothing against you, just a curiousity here.  What is the difference between attacking Iraq and going to war?  Who draws the line?

The line is drawn by the laws of the USA, in what I was talking about.  There are differences, and they have been defined for us, and that's what I'm talking about.

You may chose your own personal definition, but I'll go with the books, because it makes for less miscommunication.

[*NADS Capt. Anarchy]

The difference between attacking Iraq and going to war is merely a technicality in the laws of the United States. Thus, if you go to a  library and look up the Vietnam War, you find it under "Vietnamese Conflict," since it too was never a properly declared war.

The difference in all reality? Nothing. We still send our troops over to fight theirs, they shoot/bomb/attack/kill each other, and people die. If war is declared when we're already fighting, the difference will be nothing.. we will continue to follow the same battle plan, with the same troops, weapons, vehicles, against the same enemey. Bush will just be legally "justified" in his attack if war is declared.

After all, how many veterans do you know from Vietnam that refer to it as a "Conflict"?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

After all, how many veterans do you know from Vietnam that refer to it as a "Conflict"?

3

The difference between attacking Iraq and going to war is merely a technicality in the laws of the United States. Thus, if you go to a  library and look up the Vietnam War, you find it under "Vietnamese Conflict," since it too was never a properly declared war.

Right, however, in the case of Vietnam, Congress never really put on the brakes either.

What you are overlooking is that after an amount of time (30 days?  60 days?  can't remember off the top of my head), Congress has to give it's OK, or Bush has to pull out.  That's what the check and balance is.  

And, if Bush does start bombing, and attacking, and Congress does put the brakes on him, that will make quite a statement in the world too.  Everyone will see that if he's wrong, even being President, he is not all powerful.

And if Congress backs him, then he's justified.  Not just legally.  Our laws and system will have been followed.  Just because some of us don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's not justified, does it?  If not, what makes something justified?  Nothing is ever supported 100%, so, if not the law, what makes something justified?

[tasty]

How many would want to is another good question.  What makes loving the world better then loving a country?  

The world will last far longer than any country. Countries are impermanent intellectual inventions of man, and the world is (at least in a relative sense of time and space) permanent. Also, people can't control what country they are born in. If someone is born into poverty in Africa, the circumstances of their life are basically beyond their control. I don't feel that much more connected to an American than I do to a citizen of any other nation. We speak different languages and embrace different cultures, but there is an underlying level of humanity that we all share. There is nothing wrong with loving a country, but I think that love for the world is more edifying for its altruism and understanding.

[Cossack]

Forgive me for what I am to say.
This war makes me want to vomit, the only thing that can cure the world is to assasinate George W Bush. I dont care if the FBI get a hold of this post, but Bush needs to die. Bush is a born again christian, I have read his opinions. Just now I was surfing the channels and I stoped at a network called TBN. Trinity Broadcasting Network. This is a christian country bumpkin network. Well I decided to watch, seeing as I have been getting anti-war leftist opinions. I hear some fat Ft Worth worthless peice of shit minister saying that this war will bring about the second coming of christ, that the church will be in rapture during this war. These fuckheads are activley seeking the apocolypse, and Bush is one of them! I am so angry at the United States, that I have made final plans to move back to Russia. If Bush's crusade ever comes to Russia or its allies I will be more than happy to fight the Evil Baptist Empire. America needs to impeach Bush or die.
Evangelical Christians= Al Queda.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The world will last far longer than any country. Countries are impermanent intellectual inventions of man, and the world is (at least in a relative sense of time and space) permanent.

So is loving a person worse then loving all people?  Is loving a dog, since their lives are so short, less then loving a country?

Love is love, devotion is devotion.  Love, above all else, is a choice.  Is it better to love the whole world more then one woman (or man)?  Why?  That person could be a saint, while some parts of the world are hell on earth.  

Also, people can't control what country they are born in. If someone is born into poverty in Africa, the circumstances of their life are basically beyond their control. I don't feel that much more connected to an American than I do to a citizen of any other nation.

Ah, now you are talking about people loving it because they have to, and those who make it a choice.  Most people are not forced to live in a country.  Anyone that wants to enough, can usually find a way out.  A way to a better country.  Not everyone.  Some societies are so repressive, they don't let their citizens leave.  

But, for many people, we make a choice.  If you don't agree with your governmental system, you should find one you do care about.  

It's like this.  You shouldn't settle for your high school sweetheart, and marry her, if you don't really love her, just because you are afraid to go out in the world and look elsewhere for it.  If you don't love your country, you should find one you do love, and live there.  There's nothing wrong with it.  Problem is, most people are to afraid to do it.  

We speak different languages and embrace different cultures, but there is an underlying level of humanity that we all share. There is nothing wrong with loving a country, but I think that love for the world is more edifying for its altruism and understanding.

There's nothing wrong with loving the world.  Nothing wrong with loving your country.  Hell, there's nothing wrong with loving both.  And loving your country doesn't mean you embrace our differences any less.  

Bottom line, there's nothing better about loving the world over one nation.  It's just different.  Nothing worse, nothing better, but different (one of those things to be embraced).

[tasty]

The only reason I think it's more important to love the world than to love a country is that love for a country often results in or contributes to action that is a detriment to people that do not live in your country. Love for the world ensures that all people will be considered equally in policy decisions, not cast aside as enemies because they do not share the same nationality.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Forgive me for what I am to say.
Just now I was surfing the channels and I stoped at a network called TBN. Trinity Broadcasting Network. This is a christian country bumpkin network. Well I decided to watch, seeing as I have been getting anti-war leftist opinions.

That was your first mistake Coss!  I erased that crap from my satellite dish the day I moved in.  

America needs to impeach Bush or die.

Now Coss, you know better then that.  You can't impeach him unless he breaks the law.  Not agreeing with him isn't enough.

Evangelical Christians= Al Queda.

That may be going a little too far.  Just a little.  The Evangelists haven't been bombing people as an organization so far.  

They tend to be just as nutty and extreme in their views, but they haven't graduated to violence.  KKK= Al Queda, yeah, that I agree with.  Doesn't matter which faith they follow, if any.  Terrorists are terrorists.

To Bondo and Loudnotes: gosh oh golly, I use the same method on Coss and Alaric, and they are my buds.  And gosh oh golly, Tasty seems to follow along.  Gee, we don't agree on it, but he sure doesn't seem to find it hard to follow.  Or, maybe he does (only he knows for sure), but he doesn't let it stop him from discussing the points.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

People honestly seem to believe that it is not only the duty of every American to agree with the administration, that it is also the duty of the world to do so.

This was the inspiration for the satire news piece that I posted...I agree that it is distressing.

Cossack...If Bush were assassinated it wouldn't change anything.  The US Goverment unlike Iraqs, doesn't work on one man.  It would manage as it has in the past and most likely just be more adamant to fight the war on terrorism

What I want to know...I know there are ways to recall public officials locally, is there any way the public can recall a President and force a new election?  I know Parlimentary systems can do that (wouldn't be surprised if it happens to Blair really seeing as his own party has issues with him) and I would hope there is something we can do.

Anyway, I most definately love the world more than the US.  In fact, I find them mutually exclusive seeing as the US trashes the world.  I dislike the US because of the harm it does the the world.

I'm just glad Canda has announced they aren't providing any support for this war.

[jn.loudnotes]

True indeed, but you also didn't post 4 pages of quotes this time.  Nevertheless, your "buds" didn't even attempt to respond to every detail you mentioned.  I guess that means you win?  Most likely it's because they lack the time to address everything.  Most of us do.  That's why I ask you to go for the big picture more than the little things.

Likewise, regarding tasty's comment about the world as a whole.  You said:

So is loving a person worse then loving all people?? Is loving a dog, since their lives are so short, less then loving a country?
Love is love, devotion is devotion.? Love, above all else, is a choice.? Is it better to love the whole world more then one woman (or man)?? Why?? That person could be a saint, while some parts of the world are hell on earth.

This continues an idea of limiting everything.  Sure you can love an individual saint, or wonderful place.  But that shouldn't outweigh your love of all humanity as a whole, or of the planet.  With the one the other would be nonexistent.  In your arguments you shirk the whole argument to pick out the "hell" within.  But does that mean the whole thing is invalid?  Is humanity in totality bad because we have produced Hitlers and Husseins and others whom we deem hateful?

To love your country, you must love the world as a whole.  But people tend to forget that, and think that their nations are like islands, which can exist entirely alone.  

Oh and why did I tell you how to respond to my post?  Perhaps that was uncalled for, but tell me whom you were responding to?  Did you say those things for someone else's benefit?  If it were a conversation between me and you, why not just either leave it alone or address it the way I asked you to.  Is it that hard?

[Cossack]

Did you know Bush went AWOL and deserted his post when he was in the Air National Guard? That is against the law, you'll get court marshalled for that. He probablly has commited a crime. Isnt it unlawful to throw our civil rights out the door? In any case, he and his cronies must be destroyed. Even George HW Bush think his son is doing it the wrong way. He said in a tactful way that it was wrong of his son to abandon our allies and go this alone. America is turining into Nazi Germany. I know none of us has lived in Nazi Germany, but my grand mother has. She notices the same pattern of events happening. Your country will be heading into a time as dark as Stalin's era. This is a conflict of religion above anything else. Evangilism vs Whabbism.
By the way Bucc, I would erase that shit from my TV, but I dont have sattelite or cable.