Principles of a New World Order By Graduate Students Against the War

www.californiaaggie.com...

guess i should ask before i post any further, is this the forum to post links to articles? is it ok to paste the whole article on occasion or do you prefer links? thanks!

It would be nicer if the world could just spray 'em for the noxious weeds they are.

Just to let you know your post hasn't fallen on deaf ears.

Hey, what planet have you posted on before now, MobXsiNN?

well my silly computer won`t load the page up...any chance you could send the text of it to my email?

June 04, 2003
Guest Opinion | Principles of a new world order
E-mail this article
Send a letter to the editor
By Graduate Students Against the War


May 27, 2003 - After the fall of the Berlin Wall, President George H.W. Bush ushered in the post-Soviet era by calling it a �New World Order.� The former president Bush followed up his statement by invading Panama and then going to war against Iraq in the first Persian Gulf War.

Like his father, President George W. Bush is aggressively pursuing this New World Order. He has prosecuted unilateralism to the fullest, aggressively trumpeting violence in foreign affairs. In just over two years in office, President Bush has attempted to overthrow the democratically elected Venezuelan government, escalated the Andean guerilla war via �Plan Colombia,� engendered a war in Afghanistan, disregarded the will of the U.N. Security Council and violating the organization�s charter and invaded Iraq a second time, finishing off Saddam Hussein. Yet, these worldwide interventions are not misguided blunders, but rather a rational policy aimed at global military domination.

Even before Bush�s election, a Washington neoconservative think tank, the Project for the New American Century, laid out the nature of this omnipotent American Empire. Headed by conservative strategists William Kristol and Gary Schmitt, PNAC is a central actor now defining the Bush Administration�s foreign policy. Senior members of the Bush Administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Department strategist Paul Wolfowitz and State Department Undersecretary Elliott Abrams, have signed on to PNAC�s Statement of Principles.

By advocating an invincible military as well as a bold and aggressive foreign policy, PNAC aims to duplicate the successes of Reagan�s bellicose Presidency. However, PNAC seeks to go beyond that in the current Administration, calling for a state of permanent global intervention. Neo-conservatives insist that the United States must have the will to create an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles. PNAC is arguing for a permanent state of war, in which the United States will be in perpetual conflict with all who seek to oppose American domination.

In order to achieve global military dominance, PNAC projects remaking the American military machine. In its paper �Remaking America�s Defenses,� the neo-conservative planners call for a �transformation� of the American military. PNAC advises a �revolution in military affairs� through the application of advanced technology and reorganization of the military. This includes missile defense, control of space and cyberspace, and a hybridization of robotic and conventional forces. PNAC envisions America to be the hegemonic military power on land, in the sea, over the air, and in outer space. This, of course, is precisely Donald Rumsfeld�s program as defense secretary. And to what end? A new technological military supremacy will secure vital resources and ensure political submission throughout the empire.

As ominous as this radical expansion of military control is, the domestic governmental change that PNAC advocates and that the Bush administration has begun to implement is just as frightening. Essentially, PNAC thinkers desire military control over the American polity. PNAC planners understand that America�s voters �will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.� Attaining absolute political power, then, will enable neo-conservatives to institutionalize their policy goals within the federal bureaucracy. As the new Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the ongoing infringement of civil liberties and the growing climate of fear demonstrate, some of these goals have already been met.

PNAC planners realized several years ago that the American public must live in fear in order for such imperialistic plans to be accepted as reasonable. Writing a year and a half before Sept. 11, 2001, the PNAC noted that the process of bringing about this public state of fear would likely take a considerable length of time, �absent some catastrophic and cataclysmic event � like a new Pearl Harbor.� In other words, a Pearl Harbor-type event offered the possibility of accelerating the American public�s willingness to accept the project of world domination (and the stifling of domestic dissent) as its own.

Bush saw Sept. 11, then, precisely as an �opportunity� � Condoleeza Rice�s word in a policy briefing the next day � to galvanize the American public into quickly accepting belligerent policies as necessary for America�s defense. Bush has fought his wars against Afghanistan and Iraq and has undermined Constitutional rights all in the name of the �war on terror.�

But before Sept. 11 and before the war on terror, the PNAC was already advocating just the policies that Bush is pursuing today. PNAC prescribes violence because it has no alternative. The Bush Administration will lose the upcoming election if domestic concerns are not deflected by military exploits abroad. A widening recession, rising unemployment, record level budget cuts, massive transfers of wealth to the wealthy and corporate scandals all require that Americans must turn their attention elsewhere. Consequently, neo-conservatives must rely on strong shows of force to retain their power.

Yet, relying on force alone is inherently weak. As James Baldwin, writing 30 years ago, eloquently put it, �When power translates itself into tyranny, it means that the principles on which that power depended, and which were its justification, are bankrupt. When this happens, and it is happening now, power can only be defended by thugs and mediocrities � and seas of blood.�

It is up to all of us to resist this specter of tyranny and its concomitant bloodshed as our only hope for a better and more peaceful planet.

GRADUATE STUDENTS AGAINST the WAR can be reached at [email protected]. Information about campus antiwar activities can be accessed at ucdavispeace.org.

E-mail this article
Send a letter to the editor



� 1995 - 2003 The California Aggie. All rights reserved.

About The Aggie Advertising Contact Us SEARCH
Advanced Search

Hey, what planet have you posted on before now, MobXsiNN?

I post on quite a few other boards. I was posting on this board like 1.5 years ago and left after 9 or so months ago, was full of distracters, debunkers, and sheeple talk, didn't have much of an interest to stick around. Seems to have cleaned up quite nicely, with lots of young, eager open-minded truth seekers lurking, yearning for knowledge. Plus a great new forum layout to boot *winks at simon* I might just stick around for awhile, we'll see.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
May 27, 2003 - After the fall of the Berlin Wall, President George H.W. Bush ushered in the post-Soviet era by calling it a ?New World Order.? The former president Bush followed up his statement by invading Panama and then going to war against Iraq in the first Persian Gulf War.

Revisionist history happening before your eyes folks.

Just remember this tidbit... in over 20 years of researching "conspiracy" topics, I've seem much more disinformation and lies from so-called "conspiracy sources" than from official sources.

This is one of them.

This is one of them

What exactly in this article makes you think it's a disinfo piece?

You might very well be right, ive only quickly skimmed it over.

William

Out of interest, do you mean by 'disinformation' that the part about Bush Sr's quote after the felling of the Berlin Wall is untrue, the invasion of Panama is untrue, or the whole article is untrue?

I've read a few things about PNAC which are consistent. I can see why anti-Bush neo-con loathing writers might want to embellish their "facts". I don't have an opinion on the veracity of all of this article one way or the other, but I'm very interested in which parts could genuinely be called 'revisionist'.

not that it matters, but i agree with all of it and have been looking at conspiracy forever. the NWO is a good one that was brought out of the closet. it is truly revisionist!
at the risk of being boring I will repeat myself and point out the comon thread in our last three major wars initiated by assasins. Kennedy, many conducted by Saddam, and the WTC. All three wars engaged upon by Texans, Haliburton and its divisions gained immense contracts in all of them. Johnson and this administration have obvious links to Haliburton. Bush and the CIA have obvious links to the Kennedy affair and right up to puting Sadam in power and training and arming bin Laden in Afghanistan etc....
all of life is a conspiracy and there are many at all levels
this is a big one

the war on terror is open ended and will never stop
All Hail the New World Order

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
June 04, 2003

Bush saw Sept. 11, then, precisely as an �opportunity� � Condoleeza Rice�s word in a policy briefing the next day � to galvanize the American public into quickly accepting belligerent policies as necessary for America�s defense. Bush has fought his wars against Afghanistan and Iraq and has undermined Constitutional rights all in the name of the �war on terror.�





was it an opportunity or a planned conspiracy, and by whom?


in all conspiracy you must look at who had the most to gain and who could take away the safeguards to prevent it from happening?

There is a comment attributed to George W Bush following 9/11, that with these largest terrorist attacks in US history he had hit "the trifecta".

Not a sensible thing to say out loud. But indicative that this was the Pearl Harbour event described by PNAC.

For me, it doesn't affect my judgment that much whether it's a conspiracy, complicity or straight out incompetence in the intelligence/security system. No-one is going to have the answers in a hurry the way the 9/11 inquiries are being carried out and suppressed.

The "trifecta" comment in isolation, if it can genuinely be attributed to this ignorant scumbag, would be enough to sway me against respecting him. Oops, maybe my last sentence suggests I pre-judged him some time before.