THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

JM, hear, hear.

Now, back to the fray.

blatham,

The AEI scares the hell out of me. We know of the 'interests' of the Russian, French, and German (teritiary) interests in oil contracts, both historically,and more up to date. What we don't know is Cheney's and Bush's involvement in all of this. We know of hints and suggestions - but nothing firmer.

But if the government is involved in any kind of imperialism plan for a new world order, based on the acguisition of oil rights, I would be ready to give up my citizenship and move elsewhere.

It took over 65 million tons of petrol to fight WWII .... try establishing a new world order on a BP credit card ..... the oil is a means to an end.

Actually, he is taking to the airwaves tonight, at 9 p.m. = only the third time is his presidency.

ge - scary and lost, we are. And not good news. The entire thing is blowing up in everyone's faces.
Since I do not believe in God, I can't even pray for a different outcome. The killing will continue. Damn Bush!

New World Order

(Redirected from New world order)

One might be looking for Pat Robertson's book New World Order (1991), the pro-wrestling organization nWo, the phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum, or the computer game New World Order.

The term New World Order has been used several times in recent history, referring to what appeared to be a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power.

The phrase was first widely used by Woodrow Wilson in the period just after WWI, during the formation of the League of Nations. The "war to end all wars" had been a powerful catalyst in international politics, and many felt the world could simply no longer operate as it once had. The term fell from use when it became clear the League was creating nothing of the sort, and was used very little during the formation of the United Nations (though some have claimed the phrase was not used at all, Virginia Gildersleeve, the sole female delegate to the San Francisco Conference in April of 1945, did use it in an interview with the New York Times."

More recently it was used for a while after the end of the Cold War by many people, notably former U.S. President George H. W. Bush. Many felt the end of the Cold War would have dramatic effects on the international balance of power, including the hope that the end of the Cold War would usher in a new era of international co-operation through the United Nations.

The term has a pejorative meaning outside the United States. Some people promote an image of the United States as a bully that no longer has to answer to anyone, and which uses the situation to extend its influence. Thus, extension of the NATO pact to regions in eastern Europe, Kosovo War, war on Iraq, and isolation of small "unbending" nations are all seen as examples of this bullying attitude. Bush's use of the term "New World Order" was picked up as a convenient catch-phrase to symbolize this attitude.

Closely related terms, the "New International Economic Order" and the "New International Information Order" were popular in the United Nations and its specialized agencies (especially UNESCO) in the 1970s and 1980s. They were used mainly by developing country groups (e.g. the G-77, the Non-Aligned Movement) to refer to the redistribution of wealth on a global scale, and the international control of the media to stop the "defamation" of third world countries. Western countries attacked these plans as an attempt to destroy capitalism and freedom of speech; and they were quietly dropped in the 1980s after Western countries threatened to withdraw from United Nations bodies. (The US and UK made good this threat by withdrawing from UNESCO; both have since rejoined)
A rather different New World Order is the object of a belief or conspiracy theory among apocalyptic religious and political extremist groups, especially in the United States, that the United Nations has created a secret plan, known as the New World Order (NWO), to rule the world via a totalitarian socialist world government. There are a number of different ideologies related to this, some groups are religiously motivated, and believe that the agents of Satan are involved, and there are others without religious bias, known as illuminus, who are considered to be intellectually illuminated, and operate outside of social, legal and political restraint, gathering information and evidence on world events that are considered instigated by another group of illuminated individuals called the illuminati, to allow a stronger foothold for the global elite to hold control, and also taking direct action influencing groups to prevent the new world order attaining a foothold, these illuminus believe that the totalitarian society has already arrived in a subtle form.

The understanding of these groups is that the NWO will be created by a military coup, using UN and American troops, against all the nations of the world to bring about the One World Government. There was a belief among some believers in this thesis that this process would begin in 2000, set in motion by the predicted Y2K computer crisis causing widespread social disorder.

Some predictions made by users of this term of events that will occur under the NWO include:

* The abolition of private property rights and gun ownership
* all national and local elections controlled by the UN
* the US constitution replaced by the UN charter (although clearly not the current UN charter)
* only approved religions will be allowed to exist - as parts of the One World Religion
* home schooling will be illegal and there will be a UN approved curriculum
* military bases will be turned into concentration camps to confine those who defy the NWO.

Although the UN is used as a central figure in these actions, sometimes Jews, Communists, extra-terrestrials - typically "The Greys", the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Illuminati, and similar bodies are included in the conspiracy.

SOURCE PLUS LINKS .... See what you think

I'm listening to Bush. The press conference. Does anyone remember Quegg and the little balls bouncing in his hands? This performance is reminiscent. Awful. This is the leader of the free world....

His refusal to even attempt an address to the question why he was attending the 9-11 commission with his babysitter was...well, to be fair, what else could he do but avoid that one like the bubonic plague?

And on a pointed question as to "Why can you never admit you've made a mistake", he didn't admit he'd ever made one.

Easily 80% of what came out of his mouth we've heard before.

Please get rid of this guy.

"It was the strawberries see..."

I just finished watching the Presidential Press Briefing (PPB, if you will). I actually thought he did rather well. As a soldier in the field I would find little to criticize, this coming from my Commander in Chief. As a commander in the field I would try to, respectfully, hold him to his promise of supplying his troops with that which I felt they needed to complete the mission.

I sensed just a little humility, perhaps disguised as the absence of arrogance. The President actually convinced me of his devotion to the cause of ME freedom through the Iraq conflict. His performance surprised me. His feelings came across as genuine, I believed his determination and I believed his argument that freedom in the ME will work towards American security. That statement seemed honest. The side effect of ME freedom is not insignificant but the goal of U.S. security is what the president is responsible for and his stated goal. I agree. But the flip side with these noble goals is the action taken to obtain them. It is now this administration's responsibility to determine and implement such actions so warranted. I for one will hold their feet to the fire on this.

However, he did stumble on the question where he was asked what his biggest mistake was, but this is like that classic job interview question: "Tell me, what do you think is your weakest area?". This seems like a loaded question but it can easily be countered once one knows the trick. This is a failure of his prep team.

Sure we should stay the course in Iraq but sooner or later the American public, one can only hope for sooner, is going to want the specifics involved in this effort towards nation building that was previously eschewed by this administration not too long ago. Mr. Bush's salvation will be in the details. However, the ultimate result will not be a 2004 election issue.

So, it will be interesting to see Sen. Kerry's public statements post this PPB. The economy seems to be rebounding so what issue will the Dem's focus on to fulfill their dream to "Get rid of this guy"?

Further, for those so inclined to view the Iraq conflict as a globally serious issue, what can Sen. Kerry say towards its successful resolution? Given a President Kerry, will he pull out (a nightmare situation) or will he continue to lead the country through this. Given the latter choice how would he do better than GW? Contrarily would a wise Kerry strategy be to just wait it out for a Bush failure? Is inaction a valid strategy?

JM

Thanks again JM. I am glad I'm not the only one who detected truth in his convictions.

Forgive my cynicism, but I think GWB was chosen by his party machine to be leader because he is a likeable guy, not because he has command of his subject.
So (and I did not see the press conference) he will come across as sincere and likeable most times, because he does not realise the gravity nor the reality of the situation. He believes his handlers. He does not read the papers.

I sat there waiting for answers to questions asked and the answers never came, not one.

OK
"I for one will hold their feet to the fire on this."

Oh, that's great to know. We can all relax now.

Anyone satisfied with Dubya's performance last night obviously is so into denial on the man -- it makes no sense to try to reason with him/her.

Dubya's abilities with the spoken word are about on a level with a not especially competent candidate for a High School class president.

It grieves me to see people I consider intelligent supporting this pathetic individual.

He is, as Ross Perot might say, all hat and no cattle.

It all depends on whether you are more impressed by the first twenty minutes of defending attacking Iraq or the last fourty minutes of rationializing it.

I couldn't stand to watch it....or sit, either. It is all so predictable, and designed to conceal, or obfuscate. If it weren't for his Machiavellian handlers, he might just bumble his way into some revealing truth-telling. God forbid. Of course Cheney has to be at his side when he goes to the 9/11 commission - to make sure that his utterances toe the agreed upon 'perception is reality' take on things.

This guy makes sense.

It makes me wonder ..... the same goals without the present 'gang that couldn't shoot straight' administration ...




2004-04-14
Muqtada's deadly power quest

SALIM MANSUR, For the London Free Press







The ferocity of recent violence across Iraq once again provides the world a glimpse inside a terribly sick society.

The bid for power by Muqtada al-Sadr, a charlatan and a thug posing as a Shiite cleric with his militia of lumpen elements, was a year in the making.

His attack on American forces in Iraq was a feint to ignite a movement against the ranks of Shiite clergy located in Najaf around Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani.

Senior members of the Iraqi Shiite clergy are fully aware of Muqtada's ambitions and ruthlessness, but they find themselves in a quandary on how to disarm him without being viewed by Iraqis in this volatile situation as American puppets.

Muqtada bears the name of a highly respected Shiite family that suffered greatly under Saddam Hussein. Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, Muqtada's uncle, was a charismatic cleric and an intellectual leader with a huge following in the period after the 1958 anti-monarchical military coup in Baghdad. He was executed on orders of Saddam in April, 1980.

Sadiq al-Sadr, Muqtada's father, was a minor cleric, but paid with his life in 1999 when he challenged Saddam's authority.

Muqtada, apart from bearing the name, bears no resemblance to his uncle and father. But he has successfully traded his family history for popularity in the fluid situation after the fall of Baghdad last spring.

He repudiated al-Sistani's advice to remain distant from politics and maintain the sanctity of religion by adopting Khomeini's Iranian model as his objective for Iraq.

A year ago, Muqtada ordered the killing of a moderate rival cleric, Majid al-Khoei, who was returning home from exile in Britain. Al-Khoei was hacked to death in the shrine mosque of Imam Ali, the founder of Shiism, in Najaf.

Some six months later, an Iraqi magistrate issued an arrest warrant for Muqtada on the charges of involvement in al-Khoei's murder.

Here, the coalition provisional authority, led by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer, committed an error.

The CPA, instead of arresting Muqtada, preferred the Shiite establishment to work out a solution. This only emboldened Muqtada and his thugs, as the Shiite establishment hesitated to confront him.

For the Shiite leadership, democracy is a code word to get rid of the Sunni domination of Iraq and turn the page on their brutal persecution that runs through the heart of Arab-Muslim history.

In his bid for power, Muqtada joined those Sunni Iraqis still fighting the coalition forces, and appealed for a common front against Americans, using Saddam's discredited language of Arab nationalism.

They are not alone -- their numbers swelled by Arab-Muslim fanatics, members of al-Qaida and its network of terrorists, and agents of Iranian ayatollahs -- in the recent effort Muqtada mounted to derail the U.S.-led project for Iraqi democracy.

Americans, in this instance, have waded into the hell of Middle Eastern politics without fully comprehending the peculiar culture of its people.

Here the people share a common characteristic of an excess of emotions suffocating reason, and among Shiite Muslims this trait is reflected in the recurrent orgy of ritualistic mourning for the murdered Husayn, the grandson of the prophet Mohammed.

Americans have been excessively cautious in a culture where, frequently, massive force is used to contain mob fury.

The enemies of freedom and democracy, however, took American caution as a sign of weakness to be exploited.

The Shiite establishment, on the other hand, by its indecision, has been consistent with its history of failing its own purpose.

Instead of confronting Muqtada, it nursed its demon that now throws into great jeopardy its wish for a democratic Iraq under a constitutional package prepared by the Iraqi Governing Council.

The present difficulties in Iraq are not indicative of another Vietnam-in-the-making for America.

It may, however, be another Karbala Iraqis are making for themselves, predictably to cry over their own duplicity as they mourn for the prophet's grandson betrayed by their ancestors.


SOURCE


CLICK HERE FOR PART 2

OR, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PART CLICK ON 'A year in the war on terror'

Such stupidity. Of course we did not understand the mentality of what drives various groups in Iraq, or indeed, the middle east as a whole. It is all so far removed from modern age current cognitive and belief structure as to be unbelievable (or at least unpredictable) until you see it played out in real events. Ancient history driving current events?
Who would have thunk? And where are you, Whodathunk?

Ge, I can't pull up Part 2.

B, at the bottom of part one click on:

A year in the war on terror