The Demise of the Nation State

[woodtoo]

You know who's bitching about France the most and loudest? The French.
Funny how that works.

[delayjf]

If anything the politicians can throw monkey wrenches in the "corporate system"

You typed monkey - careful lest you get branded a racist.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by delayjf

IMO, one could interpret the above as call for a coalition of nations to fight against oppressive nations / leader and the evil they perpetrate. Similar to the coalition he put together to oppose Iraq. Not a call for all nations to give up their sovereignty in favor of a one world government.

In that immediate context, it could be interpreted that way. But when a nation relinquishes its sovereign right to defend itself and to try international cases in its own courts, that is saying an awful lot. A global policeman is just that -- GLOBAL, which clearly implies that individual nations' hands would be tied in protecting its vital interests and even in defending itself, for each nation would have to defer to the joint decision of the global authority, which in Bush SR's mind would ideally be the U.N.

Indulge me in one of my brilliant analogies: Just as individual citizens are not permitted to take the law in their own hands and must defer to the proper national authority and rely on it to "protect and serve", and also rely upon the appropriate national court system that has jurisdiction to try a case, so it would be on a national level. Individual nations would surrender their authority to a global authority -- and that comes at the pricey cost of national sovereignty.

You skeptics can spin Bush's remarks anyway you want, but the "new world order" meme has been around for a over a century, and it would be foolhardy to believe that the most powerful nation in the world has not been in the loop from the very beginning with a host of other nations, the U.N., various other confederation of states, central banking systems, and many powerful and rich individuals in advancing a global political-economical agenda. Bush Sr. was certainly no conservative by an stretch of the imagination. He was as mainstream establishment as they come, and as such he deluded himself into believing all the nations of the world would one day unite to form one global ruling body, and he believed this was a worthy goal to pursue for the good of the world. Bush Sr. was the quintessential "world citizen".

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by boxcar

he deluded himself into believing all the nations of the world would one day unite to form one global ruling body, and he believed this was a worthy goal to pursue for the good of the world.

He says without a shred of evidence.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Clocker

He says without a shred of evidence.

Of course, he did -- along with many of his predecessors. Again, the "new world order" meme has long preceded Bush. Are we supposed to believe that when he employed the phrase, that he meant something entirely different than what was generally understood by its advocates?

Did you even bother yourself to read all the numerous "new world order" quotes by various statesmen, politicians, world leaders, etc.?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, he did -- along with many of his predecessors. Again, the "new world order" meme has long preceded Bush. Are we supposed to believe that when he employed the phrase, that he meant something entirely different than what was generally understood by its advocates?

Did you even bother yourself to read all the numerous "new world order" quotes by various statesmen, politicians, world leaders, etc.?

It's a cliche, it's political rhetoric. It doesn't mean anything. But you presume to know that everyone that has ever used the phrase means exactly the same thing, world government? You read minds, even of dead people?

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

You have two quotes from Bush using the phrase in an early post in this thread. There is nothing in those quotes that suggests a world government. You have provided nothing that suggests Bush favored a world government. But you firmly state, without evidence, that "globalist" and "new world order" and "world government" all refer to the same thing.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Clocker

It's a cliche, it's political rhetoric. It doesn't mean anything. But you presume to know that everyone that has ever used the phrase means exactly the same thing, world government? You read minds, even of dead people?

You have two quotes from Bush using the phrase in an early post in this thread. There is nothing in those quotes that suggests a world government. You have provided nothing that suggests Bush favored a world government. But you firmly state, without evidence, that "globalist" and "new world order" and "world government" all refer to the same thing.

But I have made a sound argument regarding the international legal implications to his remarks. The best you can do is sound like and empty barrel in return, offering nothing of any substance to refute what I have written.

And since you characterize the phrase as a mere "cliche", this tells me you didn't read any of the quotes in the link that I posted several days ago. No one spoke of the "new world order" as though it were merely a pie-in-the-sky cliche. The concept itself grew more popular and was more seriously pursued at the birth of the U.N. But more on this later.

[woodtoo]

The NWO is in essence the U.N.
Whose mandate is HUGE, just take a look at
their " specialised agencies :UNDP, UNEP, UNFPA, UN-Habitat, UNICEF, WFP,
FAO,ICAO,IFAD,ILO,IMF,IMO,ITU,UNESCO,UNIDO,UNWTO,U PU,WHO,WIPO,
WMO,UDHR,World Bank.
Too big to fail anyone? UN is NWO.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But I have made a sound argument regarding the international legal implications to his remarks.

I must have missed that part. All I have seen is an unfounded assertion that anyone that ever says "new world order" really means "one world government".

And since you characterize the phrase as a mere "cliche", this tells me you didn't read any of the quotes in the link that I posted several days ago. No one spoke of the "new world order" as though it were merely a pie-in-the-sky cliche.

I read some and gave up. It was mostly political rhetoric without content. And of course the speakers don't think they are speaking cliches, they all think that they are profound and brilliant leaders.

Bush defined the NWO as joint efforts of allies to protect weak countries against aggressive powerful countries. A joint effort is not a one world government. A better, more effective United Nations is not a one world government.

[woodtoo]

Originally Posted by Clocker

. A better, more effective United Nations is not a one world government.

UN rejects draft resolution to name Hamas a Terrorist organisation
87 yea 57 nay 33 abstain.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

UN rejects draft resolution to name Hamas a Terrorist organisation
87 yea 57 nay 33 abstain.

What has this got to do with a hypothetical "better, more effective United Nations"?

[woodtoo]

Originally Posted by Clocker

What has this got to do with a hypothetical "better, more effective United Nations"?

It means they have a long way to go.

[Buckeye]

All you guys seem to be "mixed up" in my opinion.

What is this argument even about?

I can read, so let's say its about the Nation State vs. I don't know what.

There is no new world order and there is no united nations.

We are NOT the world.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

All you guys seem to be "mixed up" in my opinion.

What is this argument even about?

I can read, so let's say its about the Nation State vs. I don't know what.

There is no new world order and there is no united nations.

We are NOT the world.

Then what/who is the world?

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then what/who is the world?

There's Tom's world....

then Hcap's world...

and Boxcar's world...

finally the rest of us mis-fits...un-fits....etc...