The neo world order
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: ilw
With any new political phenomenon, there is always a tendency to underestimate its novelty and treat it as some kind of short-term aberration. I vividly recall how long it took commentators and analysts, on the right and left, to recognise that Thatcherism was something quite new and here to stay. Similar doubts greeted the Bush administration and the neocon revolution: its novelty would be short-lived, it would not last and it was just not viable. It is always hard to imagine a new kind of world, easier to think of the future as an extension of the past, and difficult to comprehend a paradigm shift and grasp a new kind of logic.
There was speculation last autumn that the second Bush term would be different, that the breach with Europe would be healed as a matter of necessity, that the US could not afford another Iraq, that somehow the new position was unsustainable. Already, however, from last November's presidential election it was clear that the neocon revolution had wide popular support and serious electoral roots, that it was establishing a new kind of domestic political hegemony. In fact, the right has been setting the political agenda in the US for at least 30 years and that is now true with a vengeance. All the indications suggest that the revolution is continuing apace.
The appointment of John Bolton as the US ambassador to the United Nations and the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank reveal a determination to place the cadres of the neocon revolution in key positions of power and influence and thereby create the conditions for its continuation and expansion. This was heralded almost immediately after the presidential election with the decision to replace Colin Powell, a man of very different political hue, with Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.
During the first Bush administration, and especially in its conduct of the Iraq war, the neocon revolution was often characterised as unilateralist, but this was always somewhat simplistic. No nation can simply go it alone, certainly not one that seeks to dominate the world. However strong it may be, it is still required to pursue its power and ambitions through a system of alliances. The end of the cold war led to the realisation that the US was now the world's sole superpower. The period following 9/11 persuaded the Americans that they now had an opportunity to remake the world in their own image, that the alliances that had been necessary in pursuit of the cold war, notably that with Europe, were no longer appropriate, certainly not on the old terms.
The US has similarly renounced, or chosen to ignore, many of the international treaties that it had previously been party to - Kyoto, the international criminal court, even the Geneva conventions - either because it no longer believed in them or because it regarded them as a threat to the exercise of a new kind of American power. But it would be more accurate to see this unilateralism as a phase rather than a permanent new condition, as a means of breaking the old order rather than a long-term strategy for the new.
The Bush administration has displayed a differential calculus. The heart of its strategy has been concerned with the Middle East where it has deployed a unilateralist policy of pre-emptive strikes and regime change as part of a wider attempt to remake the region. The Europeans were disregarded and relegated to the role of bystanders. In East Asia, the Americans have behaved quite differently. North Korea, like Iraq and Iran, was part of the axis of evil, but there has been no attempt at regime change. North Korea's nuclear weapons, the geographical proximity of Seoul, the opposition of South Korea towards precipitous action, and the role and interest of China, have obliged the Americans to move with caution. Far from unilateralism, they have vested their efforts in the six-party talks, and the hope that China might act as a restraining force on Pyongyang.
In the longer run, China remains the greatest global challenge to the US. But here again the Americans have moved with care and restraint. They sought to enlist China in the war against terror following 9/11, and since then relations between the two have been relatively calm. Meanwhile, the Americans will continue to give tacit support to Taiwan and quietly encourage Japan's growing nationalism as a bulwark against China and a means of protecting their own role in the region.
It is clear, in this context, that there are three main elements to American unilateralism: Iraq and the Middle East; the Atlantic alliance; and the US's attitude towards international treaties and law. Although the Americans flagrantly ignored the Europeans over Iraq, and have loosened the bonds that previously existed in a way that undermines the notion of the west as shaped in the crucible of the cold war, they will seek to build a new relationship with Europe, albeit one far less intimate and far more unequal than before. As for Europe, there would appear to be clear limits as to how far it is prepared to go to resist the Americans.
There are two small defining moments in this process. The Europeans may feel decidedly uneasy about Wolfowitz becoming president of the World Bank - with the exception, of course, of Bush's European lapdog, our prime minister - but they are evidently going to acquiesce. American and European dominance of the institutions of the international economy ensures that the two will continue to cooperate, even if the relationship is likely to be more tense and fractious. The other example is the European Union's attitude towards the arms embargo with China. Under American pressure, the likely decision to lift it will now be postponed: the ties are still sufficiently strong for Europe not to wish to anger the Americans beyond a certain point. The prospects of a drift towards any form of triangulation in the relationship between the US, Europe and China, even at the edges, are still very distant.
The withdrawal of the US from international treaties does not condemn international law to the dustbin of history. It is evident, however, that the Americans are determined either to render these treaties redundant simply by ignoring them, force them to be renegotiated or perhaps both. In effect, what the Americans are intent on doing is reordering the world system to take account of their newly defined power and interests. Every part of the world is likely to feel the consequences of this geo-political earthquake, but some much more than others.
The restless determination of the Bush administration to reorder global affairs is well-illustrated by a classified document prepared by the US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a prelude to a massive review of Pentagon spending. It requires the military to build a far more proactive force focused on changing the world rather than responding to specific conflicts such as the Korean peninsula. It sees the development of very differently trained troops who would be able to intervene on a much more widespread basis. "The idea is that you would have lots of teams operating in lots of places throughout the world," a senior defence official was reported as saying. At the same time, there is an absolute belief that the US must maintain such a large lead in crucial technologies that growing powers - in other words, China - will decide that it is simply too expensive to try to compete. Welcome to the new world order as seen from Washington.
Thought this was interesting view of the current situation in the world, and one that for the most part i subscribe to.
Posted by: bigboab
I'm sorry, but from where I am sitting it looks like if there is something in it for us and we can win then we will invade. Else let's talk to try and resolve it. :)
P.S. The room is getting too quiet. lets liven it up. :rolleyes:
Posted by: j2k4
An awfully parochial view of things, but another set of opinions into the hopper, eh?
Easy to buy, just as easy to queer with a few facts/questions.
I'm sure others will be wishing to have a go; think I'll wait just a bit... ;)
Posted by: TheDave
i'm not reading all that. if i die by NK's first nuke defending itself, i die. that is all
Posted by: cpt_azad
Hmmm...usually I'd say something in support of this kind of article, but not today. Although the facts are pretty darned convincing, it just doesn't click. We all know that the Americans right now are the most powerful nation on earth next to China. And NK isn't that stupid to go and launch their "so-called" questionable weapons of mass destruction (which I seriously doubt they have). Sorry, but for once I've got to call Bullshit on this one and pass it off as a more "crazy" theory. Although I'd like to compare Bush to Hitler, it just ain't gonna happen, and I know a couple of things for sure, the Nazi's aren't gonna be taking power, there is no Fourth Reich, and there is not going to be a revolution. The day that happens, I'll be the first one to step up to fight the so called "neocons".
Posted by: bigboab
An awfully parochial view of things, but another set of opinions into the hopper, eh?
Easy to buy, just as easy to queer with a few facts/questions.
I'm sure others will be wishing to have a go; think I'll wait just a bit... ;)
Yes I agree. It takes a wee while to collect suitable facts/questions. ;)
Posted by: fkdup74
awwwww......come on 'boab & j :(
while i have feelings no doubt as strong or stronger than any other American on a matter such as this,
i haven't the words to express them
US trying to take over the world? pish
new world order? pish
-edit-
i take that back, i can grant this atricle nothing at all after another reading
the US ignoring national treaties/resolutions? pish
we simply ignored the UN's decision to ignore Iraq's breaking of all the rules
dont say that that is not the main point of those comments,
because that is what helped start all this nonsense,
and is still what the left harps on every time they want to take a shot at Bush
it's really quite pathetic, but oh well.....
Posted by: vidcc
http://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/applying/ugcourses/psycho.gif
Look at this picture.
Do you see a young woman or an old woman?
The article is about perception.
Some Americans fit the article, some don't, but actions are not always judged with all the facts involved and everyone gets lumped into a huge melting pot and cast into one figure. No matter who we are others will view us differently from how we view ourselves.
I can't agree with some aspects of the viewpoint but I can see how others could have such a view. Yes the US has either renounced or not joined international treaties. The reasons may seem rightious to many Americans but selfish, arrogant and unacceptable to other nations.
If anyone has seen the incredibles (I have kids so I had no choice) an example was shown where the superhero saved a man that jumped off a building....the man then sued the superhero because he didn't want to be saved.
The UN has never been in the good books of many American conservatives and at the moment it seems that those conservatives are the ones that have the microphone.
Even internally we see the wish to force our opinions on each other, the recent feeding tube fiasco is a prime example. So it is no big shock that articles such as this are written.
I often feel that our government is becoming a theocracy, there are those that feel it is not religious enough.
The article is biased, it appears agenda driven (we don't know who wrote it), but it is unfortunately how the USA is perceived by many. It's nothing new.
Posted by: Busyman
awwwww......come on 'boab & j :(
while i have feelings no doubt as strong or stronger than any other American on a matter such as this,
i haven't the words to express them
US trying to take over the world? pish
new world order? pish
-edit-
i take that back, i can grant this atricle nothing at all after another reading
the US ignoring national treaties/resolutions? pish
we simply ignored the UN's decision to ignore Iraq's breaking of all the rules
dont say that that is not the main point of those comments,
because that is what helped start all this nonsense,
and is still what the left harps on every time they want to take a shot at Bush
it's really quite pathetic, but oh well.....
Hmmmm......it seems the rule that was broken wasn't proven to be uh...broken.
I'm do'nt really lean left (I find myself leaning right on many issues) but when my friends die over bullshit then Bush is an easy target.
...and yet we have an asshole shouting that he has nukes and Bush now uses diplomacy.
Head Out Of Your Ass time. :dry:
Posted by: TheDave
i take that back, i can grant this atricle nothing at all after another reading
the US ignoring national treaties/resolutions? pish
we simply ignored the UN's decision to ignore Iraq's breaking of all the rules
dont say that that is not the main point of those comments,
because that is what helped start all this nonsense,
and is still what the left harps on every time they want to take a shot at Bush
it's really quite pathetic, but oh well.....
what about the polution and trade stuff?
Posted by: bigboab
Hmmmm......it seems the rule that was broken wasn't proven to be uh...broken.
I'm do'nt really lean left (I find myself leaning right on many issues) but when my friends die over bullshit then Bush is an easy target.
...and yet we have an asshole shouting that he has nukes and Bush now uses diplomacy.
Head Out Of Your Ass time. :dry:
Come on Busyman. Go by history. Any chance of the USA or any western country 'winning' in that area, without the backing of the Chinese, is zilch. Unless they use the nuke option, of course. Then nobody wins. :(
Posted by: TheDave
cockroaches win
Posted by: Busyman
Come on Busyman. Go by history. Any chance of the USA or any western country 'winning' in that area, without the backing of the Chinese, is zilch. Unless they use the nuke option, of course. Then nobody wins. :(
Good point...Vietnam War, Korean War...
However nukes?....We'd win. :rolleyes:
Posted by: j2k4
[IMG] The article is biased, it appears agenda driven (we don't know who wrote it), but it is unfortunately how the USA is perceived by many. It's nothing new.
A succinct summation.
I am heartened by your last, vid-it isn't at all anything new, other than possibly which quarter is offering the opinion; the danger comes when such takes the form of a pronouncement (which this does) and is swallowed, grouper-like, by those less discerning.
I think the mention of Kyoto, for example, is meant to do little more than tantalize, though when considered in the context of it's rejection by other nations, the point loses a full octave.
Kyoto is actually a stale subject.
I am sure our relative lack of reaction results from our collective ennui, rather than sheer laziness, although I will confess to suffering both, just now.
I suspect things will be at a low ebb for the next short while due to the impending situation at the Vatican.
Posted by: fkdup74
Hmmmm......it seems the rule that was broken wasn't proven to be uh...broken.
I'm do'nt really lean left (I find myself leaning right on many issues) but when my friends die over bullshit then Bush is an easy target.
...and yet we have an asshole shouting that he has nukes and Bush now uses diplomacy.
Head Out Of Your Ass time. :dry:
to your first comment:
I was simply remarking on Hussien's breaking of UN resolutions,
(about which the UN did nothing)
regarding inspectors, etc. in case you thought I was referring to the WMD issue
just because his "stockpile" wasn't found or never even existed in the first place,
didn't make him to be in compliance ;)
as to friends dying....
I have a brother in the military, who's been to Iraq a couple of times
you think I woudn't regret to see him die?
that I wouldnt mourn? that I might not feel a little pissed at the government?
wake up, he's my fucking brother ffs
but there's a flip side to that coin....
he DID choose to enlist, he knew the risks, as did all our military
and I applaud them all for it, they had the heart to take a stand when I didn't
me and my bro went to enlist at the same time, I pussied out, he didnt
I am fucking proud of him, and oh man would it suck to see something happen to him
but he is a man who made a conscious decision
just last week I had the bittersweet experience of bidding farewell to a girl shipping out to Iraq,
not knowing if she would ever be seen again
I've had a childhood friend killed for nothing more than a fucking necklace,
one that got so fucking high he threw himself in front of a freight train,
one that was shot to death over fucking territory,
a few that have OD'ed, a few dead from this, a few dead from that
so don't give me any shit about friends dying, 'k?
it's weak, loss is a part of life
the sooner you grow up and learn that, the better
and as for the head up your ass deal....
is that shit that's behind your ear? :unsure:
Posted by: TheDave
am i right in thinking not all people chose to enlist but did so out of neccessity because it was the only job they could get.
Posted by: fkdup74
am i right in thinking not all people chose to enlist but did so out of neccessity because it was the only job they could get.
that's a cop-out, an excuse
granted though, the military did play the carreer card to boost enlistment
they are still playing that card today
but that doesnt matter
if you enlist, it should be done knowing FULL WELL that you MAY go to war
my brother knew it, didn't stop him
I knew it, and while it may have given me some pause,
dodgy recruitment practices was more what kept me from going through with it
after acing the practice ASVAB(?), the recruiter had a hard-on for me
they were gonna falsify my high school diploma (which I didn't have)
and my criminal record (which I did have)
so it was more fear of actually succeeding in something,
then getting kicked out for being a liar that stopped me
either way I chickened out, I won't deny that
so yeah, you can see from my experience that recruiters play an active,
and not-so-honest role in trying to hook people,
play the carreer card to people of lesser opportunity,
they might even straight out lie about the chances of going to war,
not sure, as that wasn't the case with me,
but the individual still has to know that the chance is there,
that it is a real possibility
-edit-
I am right on with you about the nukes Dave,
the cockroaches win, we are all fucked, no doubt,
but what I just quoted from you,
is a disgustingly liberal point of view
all this.....
"it's OK, we will baby-sit you because you can't do for yourself,
and while we may send you off to war, we will protest
and make fantastic excuses as to why you were there in the first place"
.....attitude is pure bullshit
is it the liberal's perogative to totally and finally destroy personal credibility/responsibility?
perhaps I am slightly biased, but that's how it seems to me
Posted by: Biggles
I am sure our relative lack of reaction results from our collective ennui, rather than sheer laziness, although I will confess to suffering both, just now.
I suspect things will be at a low ebb for the next short while due to the impending situation at the Vatican.
I share the sentiments.
Hope this is not a world wide phenomenon otherwise otherwise some sneaky political types could use the opportunity to slide some dodgy stuff past us. :ph34r:
Posted by: Busyman
to your first comment:
I was simply remarking on Hussien's breaking of UN resolutions,
(about which the UN did nothing)
regarding inspectors, etc. in case you thought I was referring to the WMD issue
just because his "stockpile" wasn't found or never even existed in the first place,
didn't make him to be in compliance ;)
as to friends dying....
I have a brother in the military, who's been to Iraq a couple of times
you think I woudn't regret to see him die?
that I wouldnt mourn? that I might not feel a little pissed at the government?
wake up, he's my fucking brother ffs
but there's a flip side to that coin....
he DID choose to enlist, he knew the risks, as did all our military
and I applaud them all for it, they had the heart to take a stand when I didn't
me and my bro went to enlist at the same time, I pussied out, he didnt
I am fucking proud of him, and oh man would it suck to see something happen to him
but he is a man who made a conscious decision
just last week I had the bittersweet experience of bidding farewell to a girl shipping out to Iraq,
not knowing if she would ever be seen again
I've had a childhood friend killed for nothing more than a fucking necklace,
one that got so fucking high he threw himself in front of a freight train,
one that was shot to death over fucking territory,
a few that have OD'ed, a few dead from this, a few dead from that
so don't give me any shit about friends dying, 'k?
it's weak, loss is a part of life
the sooner you grow up and learn that, the better
Wtf do I have to wake up for? I don't have to know your brother's in the military. :huh:
I also ain't some drone that believes in the "he joined the military so he dies on command and it's cool 'cause he enlisted" bullshit.
Your diatribe that because 'we didn't find a stockpile doesn't mean it didn't exist' is irrelevent.
Cop arrests teen - just because we didn't find a gun or stolen property doesn't mean he didn't have it. Idiotic thinking. :dry:
You risk American lives for something, fucking back it up.
Also the simple fact is Bush was full of shit and should have used diplomacy especially in light of recent inaction against NK and Iran.
and as for the head up your ass deal....
is that shit that's behind your ear? :unsure:
No, it's a brain....something you seem to be lacking in the what grey matters department. :dry:
Posted by: fkdup74
once again, you miss the entire point of what was posted,
not surprising really, given your liberal use of words such as idiotic
chew on that for a while, why don't you?
maybe you will begin to understand, maybe....
Posted by: Busyman
once again, you miss the entire point of what was posted,
not surprising really, given your liberal use of words such as idiotic
chew on that for a while, why don't you?
maybe you will begin to understand, maybe....
Oh well...my loss.
Posted by: fkdup74
Oh well...my loss.
....and once again....
you prove my point by displaying your ignorance and single-mindedness
this is great, kinda like charades, I hint at something, and you show everyone the truth
-edit-
yay! :clap: can we play some more? this is fuuuunnnnnnnn! :D
Posted by: Busyman
....and once again....
you prove my point by displaying your ignorance and single-mindedness
this is great, kinda like charades, I hint at something, and you show everyone the truth
-edit-
yay! :clap: can we play some more? this is fuuuunnnnnnnn! :D
Dude it's not working. I'm not harmed by internet mind games.
Glad you are having fun.
I feel so puppetonastring. :(
:dry:
Posted by: fkdup74
Dude it's not working. I'm not harmed by internet mind games.
the simple fact that you felt you had to post betrays.......
oh fuck it nevermind, it is truely hopeless :wacko:
Posted by: Busyman
the simple fact that you felt you had to post betrays.......
oh fuck it nevermind, it is truely hopeless :wacko:
No, no, no...keep it going.
So you were saying something about oh fuck it nevermind....uh huh.
Posted by: TheDave
according to farhenhiet 9/11.
they recruit for the army in places where theres little or no job prospects for young men and women, they literally walk the streets hustling(correct term?) kids to join the army. they even interviewed kids who were saying stuff like 'i don't wanna join the army but i have to look after my family'
but thats all liberal bullshit, right?
Posted by: vidcc
according to farhenhiet 9/11.
they recruit for the army in places where theres little or no job prospects for young men and women, they literally walk the streets hustling(correct term?) kids to join the army. they even interviewed kids who were saying stuff like 'i don't wanna join the army but i have to look after my family'
but thats all liberal bullshit, right?
Many poorer people do join the military as it is often the only way they can get benefits such as healthcare or college education. This is a sad, but it does happen.
I read "Fups" view that if you join the military you can't complain if you are sent to fight with interest. I agree that one would have to be a special kind of stupid to complain about being sent into action even if they joined up for the "poverty" reasons...it's a risk one takes and the military recruits adults that have sole responsibility for their choice to join, not children that have no idea what life is about.
However....
One joins up to protect ones own country and expects to have to fight for the right reasons.
The military is there to protect our people, not to use as a tool for getting ones way. So the point about seeing friends and family killed for "f***ed up reasons" is totally justified.
I make this point without direct reference to any conflict specifically because it is about all conflicts of "choice".
Posted by: hobbes
according to farhenhiet 9/11.
they recruit for the army in places where theres little or no job prospects for young men and women, they literally walk the streets hustling(correct term?) kids to join the army. they even interviewed kids who were saying stuff like 'i don't wanna join the army but i have to look after my family'
but thats all liberal bullshit, right?
Pretty much.
I know so many who have used their standing in the reserves to finance their college careers and even professional careers. They have a choice: work a job while in school, take out student loans or play roulette by joining the military.
Most people never have to see any tour of duty and that it is why it is and has been such a successful recruiting tool.
The Armed Forces have done a great job selling themselves to people, not by encouraging patriotism and such, but by selling the idea that by serving their country, they are opening the door to their futures by receiving specialized training and financial support.
I know a number of guys who elected to go "career" military, retiring after 20 years at the age of 40, set for life with a retirement pension. All they ever did was spend a few odd weekends a month driving tanks around the Arizona desert.
If they are culling people off the streets who have no job and no future, certainly seems to be straight forward deal. What percentage of people who have enlisted in the past 20 years actually died fighting for their country?
I don't have a number, but I would imagine it is exponentially lower than a young black man getting killed in the inner city, even given the 1500 deaths in Iraq.
Dave you should know that f9/11 is political propaganda, and tells you the story as you want to hear it. It takes a multifaceted gemstone and shows you the one side with a scuff.
As an example from the local paper, the salaries of doctors in training, those in the military are paid by rank and make about 100,000, whereas the non-miltary make about 40,000. Some of those military guys are now in Iraq, paying the hidden cost.
And I think Vidcc make a valid point about serving ones country for VALID reasons.
Posted by: TheDave
yeah i know its propaganda, but i was wondering if theres any truth behind it.
people dont join cos they want to serve their country, they join cos they can't afford not to.
Posted by: hobbes
I should also say that the Armed Forces are also wooing the l33t computer gamerz.
Apparently they have produced a rather brilliant online game, but sort of require you to go through an online basic training before you actually get to play it.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/strategy/fullspectrumwarrior/review.html
Posted by: hobbes
yeah i know its propaganda, but i was wondering if theres any truth behind it.
people dont join cos they want to serve their country, they join cos they can't afford not to.
No, that is wrong. Did you even read my post? Most people who join, don't need to.
Posted by: TheDave
yeah i read your post. are you telling me no-one ever joins the army because they can't afford not to?
Posted by: hobbes
yeah i read your post. are you telling me no-one ever joins the army because they can't afford not to?
No one? I have to account for every enlisted person? I do not let the exceptions define the rule. Some people join to watch men shower naked, you don't see Michael Moore putting that in his movie. People join, just like people play the lottery. Not because they have to but because they are willing to roll the dice for a pay-off.
What actual point are you making, other than your typically ill-informed, anti-American jibberish?
Your initial post said "So this is liberal bullshit"
I said "pretty much"
Note I did say that it was an absolute. The movie portrayed the exception as the normal which is pretty much bullshit.
Posted by: TheDave
to be honest i can't remember but anti-americanism never crossed my mind
-------edit-------
i remember now. i was saying some people die in the army after they joined up because they had to not because they chose to
Posted by: hobbes
[QUOTE=TheDave]to be honest i can't remember but anti-americanism never crossed my mind
Let me refine that to anti-American government, specifically Bush. It is just that although we may not like him, we cannot conveniently place all blame at his feet simply because we want to.
Posted by: TheDave
see. i dont think i said anything anti bush or anti american, maybe i insinuated anti-government.
i think i was pointing out to fucked up that some people dont deserve the occupational hazards of joining the army.
Posted by: hobbes
see. i dont think i said anything anti bush or anti american, maybe i insinuated anti-government.
i think i was pointing out to fucked up that some people dont deserve the occupational hazards of joining the army.
And I was pointing out that people join the Army because they have to is largely bullshit.
Most people in dire situations for which the military is their only option, probably increase their life expectancy by escaping their poverty stricken, dead end, drug dealer infested, street gang ruled communities.
I forgot to give you a little perspective, in my Fathers' day, every man was required to give 2 years to the military. Now it is strictly voluntary. Voluteers are inticed by money and opportunity.