One world? Obama's on a different planet

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Jul 28, 2008.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,321
    Likes Received:
    786
    The senator's Berlin speech was radical and naive.
    By John R. Bolton
    July 26, 2008


    SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."

    If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was



    Opinion L.A. Blog: The best and latest...substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.

    These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.


    More Here
     
  2. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Obama was letting the establishment know that he will be loyal to the New World Order just like Bush, McCain, Clinton and most of congress.
     
  3. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    The author is one of the most radical of the NeoCons perhaps second only to Paul Wolfowitz. Bush had the gaul to try to appoint him to the U.N. when he had called for the U.N. to be abolished for years. If you support war instead of diplomacy this is your man.

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    Bolton has been a strong critic of the United Nations for much of his career. In a 1994 Global Structures Convocation hosted by the World Federalist Association (now Citizens for Global Solutions), he stated,
    “ There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."[44] He also stated that "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."[45] ”

    Both Bolton's opponents[46] and his supporters[47] have used the same video of his remarks at the 1994 event in support of their points of view.

    When pressed on the statement during the confirmation process, he responded, "There's not a bureaucracy in the world that couldn't be made leaner."[48] In a paper on U.S. participation in the UN, Bolton stated "the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy."[49]

    A member of the Project for the New American Century, Bolton was also one of the signers of the January 26, 1998 PNAC letter sent to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political and military power.[50] The letter also stated "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."[51]

    The November 15, 2005 Washington Times article "Can the U.S. find a substitute for the U.N.?" noted that Bolton advocates "a revolution of reform" at the UN. Specifically, he called for:

    * The five permanent members of the UN Security Council to work more closely to craft powerful resolutions and make sure they are enforced, and to address the underlying causes of conflicts, rather than turning them over to the Secretariat and special envoys;
    * A focus on administrative skills in choosing the next secretary-general; and
    * A more credible and responsible Human Rights Commission.

    Bolton warned that the U.S. had the option of relying on regional or other international organizations to advance its goals if the U.N. proves inadequate.[52]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,321
    Likes Received:
    786
    And there is that credible source "wikipedia". How can we believe anything else?
     
  5. YOUTUBECANBESAVED

    YOUTUBECANBESAVED
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    0
    John Bolton is a neo-con

    I agree he is a Neo-con and did not serve this nation well and alienated allies.

    [​IMG]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuqNWG9sbuE
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    There are other mainstream sources where you can find the same information.

    Bolton doesn't like the UN. I'm with him on all that right up to the point where he believes as most neocons seem to that the USA should be top dawg of the planet and rule by military intimidation, pre-emptive warfare and regime change. Which BTW have little to nothing to do with "fighting terrorism".

    We should get out the UN it's about the most anti American institution there is just ahead of the American Heritage Institute the Coucil On Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.
     
    #6 poncho, Jul 30, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2008
  7. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    4
    I agree. He blasts the UN, but then supports it's sanctions that starve civilian populations. Seems like a coward's way out. I do try to like the guy, but he is part of this endless war machine.
     
  8. rdwhite

    rdwhite
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have you noticed how many of the CFR and State Department docs are now referring to the "International Order"??

    IMO, it really doesn't matter who they allow to be elected, they are all puppets.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,321
    Likes Received:
    786
    Sanctions dont starve people their leaders do. The food for oil program that was side stepped in Iraq by France and the Some in the UN as well as Saddam.
     
  10. betterthanideserve

    betterthanideserve
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0



    Check out Rudy ghouliones paper "Towards a realistic peace"at the CFR website.
    He mentioned an International system 29 times in an 8 page article.
     
  11. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Then why use sanctions at all? What purpose do they serve other than to force sovereign nations into compliance with the new international order? By now you'd think all these experts on foreign policy and affairs would have figured out that imposing sanctions may ultimately end up harming those least able to defend themselves. Wouldn't ya?

    But if you're a Malthusian elitist 500,000 or so dead children are well worth the price to bring (a new) order to the world.
     
    #11 poncho, Jul 31, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2008
  12. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    4
    Sanctions that starve the poor civilian population cannot possibly be in the will of God.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,321
    Likes Received:
    786
    Sanctions starve no one. Dishonest leaders like those in the UN do.
     
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    What's the purpose of a sanction?
     
  15. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,466
    Likes Received:
    138
    Thought On Topic

    Rev. Mitchell hit this comment "out of the park!" BHO is not of this world, this I know, for the Bible tells me so! IMHO, He may not even be a member of this universe or any other universe:laugh:

    Pastor Paul:type:
     
  16. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    Neither is an unjust war that kills hundreds of thousands of them.
     
  17. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I got an idea then! Instead of getting out of the UN and refusing to send our children and treasure over seas to enforce the sanctions imposed by dishonest leaders, why don't we just keep working with the dishonest leaders and sending our children and treasure over seas to enforce sanctions imposed by dishonest leaders?

    That sounds like a good plan to me, how bout you Rev?
     

Share This Page

Loading...