New America Foundation to US - The World's Changed: Get Over It
 

A senior fellow in the New America Foundation just wrote a piece entitled Waving Goodbye to Hegemony.

To summarize, the NWO (new world order) will be the European Union, the US, and China. Just as countries had a choice between us and the Soviets during the Cold War they now have a 3 way choice. Non-militarily, the other two are leveraging their assets smarter than we are. Our State Department, Peace Corps, etc are too understaffed to work on hearts and minds. We can no longer get away with a 'with us or against us' attitude. While we focus our attention on a few players, the EU and China are sweeping the rest of the board.

We blew a trillion dollars on a gamble to 'democratize' just two countries. This money will be needed for the new warfare, which is political and economic.

It's a great read.

He lost me when he thought that the three would work in concert with each other and that there would be no clear single leader in the world. Thats just counter to human nature. Even if it is not in the best interest of the globe, each individual will try to do what is best for their country.

Is that what the Robber Barons, that are offshore sourcing, are doing?

yup - thats them.

I think the idea is that no one would be able to dominate the other two, and that while they would compete, noone would be dumb enough to destabilize the status quo to the point that everyone would suffer.

Of course, there have been cases in the past when the US and China have both backed dangerous leaders or insurgents that later came back to haunt them.

Still, think of it as a primary where the competing candidates will snipe at one another but only to a point since they realize that they do not want to jeopardize the eventual winner's position with the voter because any one of them might be the winner. In the case of 3 'first world' countries competing for second- and third- world countries, noone wants to have it get so ugly that they are all thrown out of the contest.

In this case the down and dirty US political system might be a good training ground for dealing with this type of situation if a president is smart enough to realize that the 'my way or the highway' approach will no longer work when these countries have a choice.

We are gonna save so much money when we drop NATO.

I got that Rich, I just disagree that any of these countries are gonna behave that way - nothing has ever shown them to do so in the past and I , for one, am skeptical it will happen in the future. This whole process is just beginning. I could be wrong, but there are a lot of back door deals that will go down and we all know how that can turn out.

His is but one interesting thesis, and I will look forward to seeing how it all plays out.

NWO is pure fantasy. And if anyone wants us to believe it more it is the Chinese who are in it for the long haul. We have already forged economic ties with much of the world and are unable to ignore that. There will never be a new world order like the UN or some fantasy of a union between Europe, China, and the US. What about India, Japan, Korea, etc? What about our relations with other important trading partners? We discount them over our relations with China and Europe? This is pure fantasy.

Anytime someone blathering on with terms like "New World Order", CFR, Illuminatti, etc. I immediately stop listening to them and hear a buzzing noise. They are nothing more than moronic conspiracy theorists and retards who are likely in the John Birch Society.

I think the point here, Radar, was that this posits a newer new world order.

So that's, what, NWO 2.1, then?

NWO is just another undefined term used by right winged conspiracy theorist to get attention. They will start out by stating NWO is real and when you call them out on it, they will define NWO as the neo-conservative NWO (George H W Bush's speech) where every country in the world is a free market democracy with the United States leading the way but then start inching towards conspiracy theories afterwards.

I've never found too much to complain of in the neocons; of course for me it's a selling point that they give the hard Left conniptions and the foamies.

Awkward time right now. The world is holding it's breath on who will be the next only superpower president. And why any sane person would want that travail. JFK is legendary and always will be. What Europe and the other subpowers do now will be to contain things until the new US Govnmt. /admin comes in to play. So many conflicts in so many continents. I doubt that diplomacy is stacking chips either ways more than holding it's breath. All eyes on the election of the single most powerful man or woman on Earth. We all just want a smooth life.

Doesn't China own us now? Didn't the neocons mortgage the country? Perhaps I'm too alarmist.

They don't own us, they just hold the mortgage on our future.

The neocons say, 'Relax and bow to the new landlords, five times a day, towards the ENE preferably (towards Mecca--has something to do with the curvature of the Earth).'.

China owns Mecca too?!?

The last Clinton budget was about $1.8 trillion - maybe 20% of the economy. The last George Jr budget is $3.1 trillion (and ignores costs from "Mission Accomplished") or about 27% of the economy.

Meanwhile, George Jr projected that the American government will have a budget surplus of $48 billion in 2012. What American believes that? Wacko extremists are not preaching to intelligent people. George Jr's budget and projected surplus is for consumption by wacko extremists who blindly believe any myth justified by their political agenda.

China's economy is something like $2.3 trillion. Obviously China cannot own America. But as long as anti-Americans (wacko extremists) even believe "Mission Accomplished" is being won AND fear to ask the damning question ("When do we go after bin Laden"), then America is also discounted for sale.

To pay for increased government spending and unjustified tax cuts, America must be sold to China, et al. And at discounted rates due to a dropping dollar. Chinese, Japanese, and Europeans buying up America are not the anti-Americans - despite outcries from the naive. Those who make America so cheap - wacko extremists with their political agenda ... Well, notice increasing government spending and debt - and a projected 2012 surplus that only an extremist (mental midget) would believe.

Damning numbers. Those who hate America would believe George Jr's projected budget surplus. Those who are patriotic because they use intelligence know the scumbag president is lying again. When does he not lie? When UG rewrites history?

Tw, you're doing that thalidomide-playing-bagpipes thing again. Get this into your understanding or you'll never be well: the
does not exist, did not exist, and will not exist, and furthermore you cannot show it existing. It is a delusional construct of your own mind and no other -- it reflects your own desires that the character of rightwingers devolve until it is no better than your own, you crank.

Your immature thinking still makes you believe it's all personalized, that our troubles with Islamofascists will vanish when we get bin Laden. No; it's bigger than he is.

The rest of the world sees tw as the hater of America, for he never ever calls for action in the Republic's best interest, but always, always tries to sell us something out of the old Soviet propaganda playbook. Dumb dumb dumb, left left left, socialist socialist socialist, immature even, and let's add passe'. Tw is an example for me of how the Left thinks, and I say no thank you. The Left won't allow its adherents to grow or become intelligent.

Well sure......now. :o

Hmmm......:dedhorse:

Object is not the mental midget president. One in three Americans are so dumb or intentionally anti-American as to not see the current scumbag liar for what he is. Annapolis - another lie - is a latest example. 349 days from now, the mental midget will be replaced by someone with more intelligence. No person can deny that without lying to himself. But will 30% of Americans finally learn from history; learn that George Jr is that anti-American? No, if reality is not pushed in their face every day.

It cannot be said enough to anti-Americans who supported George Jr. 30% of Americans so hate America as to still support the scumbag. George Jr is the worst president in 100 years. Richard Nixon being the only possible exception. That 'dead horse' is a fact. Question remains how many times anti-Americans must have reality beating on their wacko extremist skulls before they finally admit reality.

Change is about putting moderates - intelligent people - into positions of power. 30% of Americans so hate moderates as to support a president who is told what to do by god and Cheney. A greater threat to America, in the long term, are those 30% who remain that delusional.

A question that any patriot would ask (in part because it defines George Jr's anti-American agenda) is "When do we go after bin Laden?" Imbedded in that question is reality - George Jr is that much an anti-American.

The 30% is his approval rating right? Then what about congresses approval rating which is less than that? Why not call them out as well? You seem very selective to attack W and let their shitty records go? Why is that? Anyone? (yes I'm seriously asking)

I'm sorry tw - Its just a point that you have been hammering home for so very very long that its pointless to waste your time typing or our time reading the same words anymore - Its over, the end is in sight - Move the heck on both as an individual and a country - k?

tw, you really need to get over yourself. Calling anyone and everyone that does not support your position as anti-American , uneducated, ignorant, and a variety of other barages is completely reprehensible.

Its about a free exchange of ideas and opinions on this board, and no insulting labels should be attached to anyone who makes an informed opinion/decision on an issue - whether you or I or anyone else agrees or disagrees.

Because Bush is a person, and Congress is a group. Bush's decisions are on him, but if Congress does something bad, attacking Congress as a whole can be cathartic but is otherwise meaningless. You have to track down whoever pushed the bad thing, or prevented improvement, and blame them. Especially in the Senate, it's easy for small numbers of people to drastically affect the product of the group, and then fade into the woodwork when the time for blame comes around. So Congress gets poor approval, and (I would guess) just about all Senators and Representatives have much higher approval than Bush.
Heh. It's funny to see this complaint about someone other than UG in an argument involving UG, no less.

Seems like you are saying they get a free pass because its easier to blame an individual instead of a group. Based upon your assumption then, they would all be doing a bang up job for their own selfish interests, yet not overall for the country. Hmmm... more thought required. Not sure that makes sense yet.

This is exciting, Romney folds and he is so good. Very eloquent and very smart and very rich ,he could have gone on but why did he fold today?

Because it costs money to keep going and it is now unwinnable for him. Huckabee was acting as a spoiler for the conservative republican vote, so Romney would have no chance of overtaking McCain. My guess is that you'll see Huckabee with a juicy position in the McCain camp. That's the only chance that McCain has of bringing the Dobson crowd back into the fold.

aimeecc - did you really think "anti-American" is derogatory? It's not and was never intended to be. Why do you assume otherwise? Did you find that post reprehensible? Good. I don't make a habit of attacking people which is obviously different from Urbane Guerrilla. If you saw insult, that is the first indication that you did not read it logically. My definition of anti-American is apparently quite different from what you may have assumed.

Only thing you might cite as derogatory is the description of a president who remains so anti-American as to be a scumbag. But I don't make that claim without reams of facts. Just a few examples. As president, he did not know what countries were adjacent to Israel? Every country that went to war with Israel. Could the answer be any simpler? He sat for 15 minutes in a child's chair doing nothing as planes were slamming into the World Trade Center. He was told "American is under attack." The exact quote. And yet he just sat there doing nothing. He is that anti-American. It is not an insult. It is a fact.

That post also defines a 30% who still remain in total denial. Are they insulted. No. They are defined by their own actions. Reasons define them logically. They don't logically know the president is that bad? They only know by what they feel? Well that is the definition of anti-American. But I never called them brainless or uneducated. You made those assumptions.

In another post, I referred to "dittoheads". Is that a derogatory comment? Of course not. Large numbers of Rush Limbaugh supporters refer to themselves as "dittoheads". Did you learn or ask for a definition before assuming a derogatory comment? Insulting is not what I do. Posting politically incorrect so as to appear insulting? Of course. Why respect people who need everything carefully worded; to appease their emotions? Your job to read through and ignore perception - always grasp the facts. You are expected to grab hold of and quash your emotions.

It is "how ideas and opinions get exchanged" - to paraphrase your own post. When an idea is not based in facts, then a blunt factual reply may easily result in a reader's emotion outburst. Did you get emotional in what was posted in post 23? If so, then cite the specific phrases that are demeaning, insulting, completely reprehensible, and not based in logical statements? Again, I defined "anti-American". Did you learn that definition before assuming it is "completely reprehensible"?

aimeecc - it is how you get measured – also part of the free exchange of ideas. You claimed something was "completely reprehensible". But not even one example – a supporting fact? How am I to judge your post as anything but an emotional outburst? How am I to reply to conclusions that don't include specific examples AND reasons why? And if your last post is justified by 'feelings', then your post is, by your own definition, "completely reprehensible". Where are supporting facts for your post? Is it based in a logical reply or have I now exposed you as one who entertains your emotions?

If you think I have attacked someone, then go back and read it again with your emotions quashed like a bug. It may be the only way for you to separate that post's purpose (what it says) from 'baited emotions'. I don't apologize for posting politically incorrect. The baiting causes those without 'opinions based in logic' to become emotional. And this IS the free exchange of ideas.

So where are your supporting facts that demonstrate "completely reprehensible"? A logic based post would have included such examples.

Define "Dobson crowd".

Dr. James Dobson, famous evangelical and head of the influential Christian group Focus on the Family.

lol!!! Sorry...I just saw this....leaving now...sorry bye.

I don't make a habit of doing what I say I don't do in the same very sentence, which is obviously different from......

No, it's easier to blame a group than an individual, but it is useless to do so. That's why Congress's approval rating is so low, and the people responsible for the displeasing behavior are doing fine in the polls. That's how pork gets in. Everybody does it, so blame Congress, not your own Congressman.

Also, people can agree that Congress has problems, but disagree on what those problems are.

Let's say that one reason for disapproving of Congress these days is that they are "do nothing".

Democrats are disappointed in Congress, but they support the Democrats who are trying to do stuff.
Republicans disapprove of Congress because it is under Democratic control, but approve of the Republicans who are threatening filibusters and upholding Bush's vetos.

The Republican members who block all Democratic legislation are from areas where people want Democratic legislation blocked, so they get high approval.

Democratic members are voting for bills that Democratic voters approve of, so they get high approval.

But bills are vetoed and filibustered at record levels, so Congress gets blamed for being "do nothing".

Thanks for the clarification HM - that makes a lot more sense.

That would be total bull shit. Congress is in the driving seat. Congress' approval rating is 23% and that has been consistantly below Bush's for months.

http://www.pollster.com/

Congress during Bush's reign is at much fault as is Bush himself, if not more, for any of the mess we are in. The Demoncrats ran on a platform of change and have been in office nearly 2 years, doing absolutely nothing. They are in the drivers seats, they get the blame.

No.

HM, I understand and agree that its easier to blame a group adn not the individual, but I must say, this particular congress hasn't done squat.

The driver's seat? How do you figure?

There are three branch of government. The Rs control the Supreme Court and the White House, and the D's have a very narrow margin of control on the Hill. Not enough to override a veto.

By my count, possession of the White House and Supreme Court means the R's have 2/3 of the power. The D's have the 1/3 that constitutes the Hill, but even there, with filibusters and no veto proof majority, they don't even have that full slice of the power pie. I'd estimate they have about 75% of the power on the Hill. 75% of 1/3 is 1/4.

Doing the math, you come up with the Rs having 3/4 of the power in the Federal government and the D's having 1/4. The D's are hardly in the driver's seat.

What could they have done?

Not even played good defense, keeping the other side (whichever side that is) from running amok? Are you a half empty kinda guy?

HM - I don't know.

BigV - right now with the current situation - I'm feelin a lot negative - yeah.