PDA

View Full Version : joe biden "how i came to love the new world order"


PALEHORSE
01-13-2009, 08:00 AM
How I Learned to Love the New World Order

Biden, Joseph R Jr.
Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 23, 1992. pg.
A13

Abstract (Summary)
Joseph R. Biden Jr defends his view that the Pentagon's new strategy which appoints the US as a sort of world monitor could render the US a hollow superpower. Biden explains why he reacted the way he did to the plan.


____________

Counterpoint: How I Learned to Love the New World Order
Biden, Joseph R Jr. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 23, 1992. pg.
A13

Imagine my surprise when a Wall Street Journal editorial appointed me dean of the Pat Buchanan school of neo-isolationism. My credentials? Believing that the Pentagon's new strategy -- America as "Globocop" -- could render the United States a hollow superpower. All agree we need the military capacity to defend our vital interests -- by ourselves when need be. The question is grand strategy. With the Journal's endorsement, the Pentagon has called for a Pax Americana: The U.S. should cast so large a military shadow that no rival dare emerge.


American hegemony might be a pleasant idea, but is it economically, politically or even militarily wise? Bristling with weapons, we would continue our economic decline, while rising industrial and financial giants in Europe and Asia viewed our military pretensions with indifference or contempt.


Defense Secretary Dick Cheney outdid even the Journal, dipping deep into the well of Cold War argumentation to accuse Pax Americana critics of thinking "America's world presence is somehow immoral and dangerous.
" Why doesn't the Journal stop the namecalling, get its schools sorted out, and court an honest debate over America's proper role in the new world order?

Pat Buchanan's "America First" preaches martyrdom: We've been suckered into fighting "other" people's battles and defending "other" people's interests. With our dismal economy, this siren song holds some appeal.


But most Americans, myself included, reject 1930s-style isolationism. They expect to see the strong hand of American leadership in world affairs, and they know that economic retreat would yield nothing other than a lower standard of living. They understand further that many security threats -- the spread of high-tech weapons, environmental degradation, overpopulation, narcotics trafficking, migration -- require global solutions.


What about America as globocop? First, our 21st-century strategy has to be a shade more clever than Mao's axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power also emanates from a solid bank balance, the ability to dominate and penetrate markets, and the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout.


Second, the plan is passive where it needs to be aggressive. The Journal endorses a global security system in which we destroy rogue-state threats as they arise. Fine, but let's prevent such problems early rather than curing them late. Having contained Soviet communism until it dissolved, we need a new strategy of "containment" -- based, like NATO, on collective action, but directed against weapons proliferation.


The reality is that we can slow proliferation to a snail's pace if we stop irresponsible technology transfers. Fortunately, nearly all suppliers are finally showing restraint. The maverick is China, which persists in hawking sensitive weapons and technology to the likes of Syria, Iran, Libya, Algeria and Pakistan -- even while pledging otherwise.


The Senate has tried to force China's leaders to choose between Third World arms sales (1991 profits of $500 million) and open trade with the U.S. (a $12.5 billion annual Chinese surplus). Even though we have convincing intelligence that China's leaders fear the use of this leverage, the president inexplicably refuses to challenge Beijing.


Weapons containment can't be foolproof; and against a nuclear-armed North Korea, I would support pre-emptive military action if necessary. But let's do our best -- using supplier restraint and sanctions against outlaw sellers and buyers-to avoid having to round up the posse.
Why not an anti-proliferation "czar" in the cabinet to give this objective the prominence it urgently needs?

Third, Pax Americana is a direct slap at two of our closest allies -- Japan and Germany -- and a repudiation of one of our panel1. Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? great postwar triumphs. For years, American leaders argued that building democracy in Europe and Asia would guarantee stability because democracies don't start wars. Now the Pentagon says we must keep our military large enough to persuade Japan and Germany "not to aspire to a greater role even to protect their legitimate interests.
"

How has our success suddenly become a threat? It hasn't, but the Pentagon plan could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By insulting Tokyo and Berlin, and arrogating to ourselves military stewardship of the world, we may spark the revival no one wants.


Secretary Cheney says he wants the allies to share the burden on defense matters. But Pax Americana puts us on the wrong end of a paradox: Hegemony means that even our allies can force ever greater U.S.
defense spending the more they try to share the burden!

Fourth, collective security doesn't rule out unilateral action. The Journal says I'm among those who want "Americans . . . to trust their security to a global committee." But no one advocates that we repeal the "inherent" right of self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.


Secretary Cheney says his plan wouldn't undermine support for the U.N. Who would know better than the U.N.'s usually understated secretary general? If implemented, says Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Pentagon's strategy would spell "the end of the U.N." Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? It envisages a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action -- but with a U.S. veto.


Rather than defending military extravagance, the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador; and rebuilding a weakened and debt-burdened America.


If Pentagon strategists and their kneejerk supporters could broaden their horizons, they would see how our superpower status is best assured. We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security.


---

Sen. Biden is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's European Affairs Subcommittee.

Ghost In The 'Lac
01-13-2009, 09:34 AM
I like Joe. He makes good points here.

Anyway, a NWO couldnt be much worse than the facist states we are currently living in, it will probably be better.

Bring it on, it sounds like a good idea to stop wars and such.

NoSaidDate420
01-13-2009, 10:39 AM
nah fuck that. that man is a straight up devil.

diggy
01-13-2009, 09:57 PM
Wolf in sheep's clothing.

TSA
01-14-2009, 11:49 PM
ok so what really is so bad about a 'new world order'
you guys dont come off as pleased with the current world order?

everytime someone uses the very common term new world order you assume they have scales. no joke.


look at that sentence above. It looks retarded. but sadly it's true.
This isn't about a Wun Werld Gubmbmhemtn but whats wrong with that idea?
less war? ease of travel? more evenly distributed wealth?international pusseh?

Olive Oil Goombah
01-14-2009, 11:53 PM
half of these people don't even kno what they are against.

So now Biden is the devil, pretty soon Obama will be the devil. Whoever is in a position of authority is a devil to them.

Cops, teachers, goverment official, the clerk at the gas station who authorizes your pump...

TSA
01-14-2009, 11:56 PM
they already declared obama was the devil cause he was a distant cousin of dick cheney (as are they)

samtheseed
01-22-2009, 02:45 PM
The NWO, this new conceptual global superpolice, does seem better than what we have now. I'm sure the best intentions are behind it. Less wars and distributed wealth. But you do realise everything great comes to an end and eventually down the line, some people are going to abuse it and do crazy things. How do you think they will convince EVERYONE that this tiny few will control all of the globe, no questions asked? Who decides what is unacceptable when democracy is gone completely? Freedom of speech will be gone. I rather live in a world where people have to earn their wealth, the idiots can make the mistakes and the true good people will correct all of humanity's problems instead of letting ONE government control it all. Something that small could never manage this entire big planet.

The NWO making themselves known is to be expected and feared. Artistic minds have thought about it and warned how these people might abuse their power. Check out the movie "Fortress". The Japanese, who are lightyears beyond us culturally, often put these themes in their sci-fi fiction and films.

ALCATRAZ
01-22-2009, 03:01 PM
im sorry but tha idea of one group of niggaz controlling everything on tha planet scares me.........just a little bit

TSA
01-22-2009, 03:20 PM
y? pussy?
seriously?
y? 1 group on niggas control your country so what's the big scare?
and your american, odd are you'll get top dibs on shit pussy.

ALCATRAZ
01-22-2009, 03:31 PM
y? pussy?
seriously?
y? 1 group on niggas control your country so what's the big scare?
and your american, odd are you'll get top dibs on shit pussy.
its got nothin 2 do wit me gettin top dibs if u got one group of people controlling the world then who is going to keep them in check? who do they answer to? their own courts?

samtheseed
01-22-2009, 03:35 PM
y? pussy?
seriously?
y? 1 group on niggas control your country so what's the big scare?
and your american, odd are you'll get top dibs on shit pussy.

The US gov't hasn't produced much of an intelligent, cultured, unified country yet. For them to boss the entire planet would be a huge mistake. If there was an NWO, no one could overthrow them or say "We don't agree with that". If the NWO existed a few hundred years ago, we'd still be slaves, probably treated worse than ever, building spaceships or some shit for white people to go find other planets to destroy. Just because the NWO would create security, your freedom would be GONE.

TSA
01-22-2009, 04:01 PM
LMAO what the fuck are you talking about? the UN has been fighting slavery world wide where countries and cultures have allowed it because they're government wants it. Amoung other things thousands of other things.


I dont want you guys to be dumb anymore.
sometimes you have to have a thought, then THINK again?

could uneducated slaves build space ships?
would you really want forced labor to put together...your space ship?
What is there to destroy in the planets we can possibly reach?
If the whole world (that mattered) was against slavery by the time the US abolished it why would they be for it?
Does this statement sound stupid, ridiculous, and/or undereducated?
Who much will it cost to send every white person to space? there's hundreds and billions of them.


its got nothin 2 do wit me gettin top dibs if u got one group of people controlling the world then who is going to keep them in check? who do they answer to? their own courts?
our own government has methods to keep them in check, why do you not think a world government wouldn't be the same way?
you really think the whole world is gonna agree to have 1 guy from 1 country be a dictator of a country he's not from?
i mean seriously?

do you even see this whole thing as possible whatsoever?


If the US was just a collection of states as opposed to 1 country would you feel more safe in a collection of states that can and will fight eachother constantly or 1 country and keeps them from being faggots?

There would probably still be slavery in the south if the opposing viewpoints of the north was its own country.







jesus, you guys really have to try to stop wasting intelligence of paranoia and fantasy. Im serious.

Crookshank
01-22-2009, 05:06 PM
I am completely against the New World Order... The Illuminati wants people to go along with the general idea of the NWO... soon they'll have people being pro-elitism, a lot already are.

TSA
01-22-2009, 06:27 PM
what a fucking fag.

EAGLE EYE
01-22-2009, 06:46 PM
half of these people don't even kno what they are against.

So now Biden is the devil, pretty soon Obama will be the devil. Whoever is in a position of authority is a devil to them.

Cops, teachers, goverment official, the clerk at the gas station who authorizes your pump...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA


half these people were also in "special needs" classes or drop outs anyways. Its funny that they are now "enlightened" about how the world really works.


These mother fuckers should start their own think tank.

drippie k
01-22-2009, 10:19 PM
i can see the world coming to have a world government in the future....first we have the european union who control the economy of all the countries in europe and even makes some of their laws (you can't be part of it if you have the death penalty, one of the reasons turkey isnt in yet) and they have been successful...europe was much more of a shithole beforehand... and then it'll go on to having all these different countries doing the same thing, making economic unions similar to the EU and so on and so forth until we have made alien contact and have a global economy and the earth would then be rules by richard m. nixons head in a glass jar

samtheseed
01-23-2009, 08:09 AM
LMAO what the fuck are you talking about? the UN has been fighting slavery world wide where countries and cultures have allowed it because they're government wants it. Amoung other things thousands of other things.


I dont want you guys to be dumb anymore.
sometimes you have to have a thought, then THINK again?

could uneducated slaves build space ships?
would you really want forced labor to put together...your space ship?
What is there to destroy in the planets we can possibly reach?
If the whole world (that mattered) was against slavery by the time the US abolished it why would they be for it?
Does this statement sound stupid, ridiculous, and/or undereducated?
Who much will it cost to send every white person to space? there's hundreds and billions of them.



our own government has methods to keep them in check, why do you not think a world government wouldn't be the same way?
you really think the whole world is gonna agree to have 1 guy from 1 country be a dictator of a country he's not from?
i mean seriously?

do you even see this whole thing as possible whatsoever?


If the US was just a collection of states as opposed to 1 country would you feel more safe in a collection of states that can and will fight eachother constantly or 1 country and keeps them from being faggots?

There would probably still be slavery in the south if the opposing viewpoints of the north was its own country.







jesus, you guys really have to try to stop wasting intelligence of paranoia and fantasy. Im serious.

I'm not talking about the UN or whether slaves could or couldn't build spaceships. I'm saying if the people who made slavery legal still governed with no way to reverse their decisions like a nwo, we may gotten alot more done (advanced space travel) but the morals would still be horrid. Try to understand what I was saying before criticizing. If they used uneducated slaves as labor for everything else, why wouldn't they use them in a technological age? Chock it up to paranoia or everyone questioning the NWO as being "a faggot", but you just shoot down any counterpoint for the sake of it. You explained your views on the positives, but why do you think the NWO wouldn't abuse their power if it did take control? Why do you trust these people, who probably wouldn't be elected at a certain point, to make decisions for all of the world?

Dirty Knowledge
01-24-2009, 08:03 AM
He slips up a lot and it seems like he's doing it with a swag. Especially his wife. They are doing it with arrogance and putting it right there for everybody to see.