It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Let's See What Happens

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 08:58 PM
I notice there are a lot of people on here (even me) who say that the NWO is a bad thing and that we should never have it and destroy it. Why do you say this? Do you have prove (sp?) that the NWO is bad? I'm not saying they are good nor bad but what I am trying to say, is that we should give them a chance.

The people who are trying to get it in power, are saying the NWO is about peace, and one world government. If they actually propose that the NWO is about peace, isn't this what we want??

But then again their proposals might be a double edged sword. They might propose one thing and have a hidden agenda as well.

I've just been pondering this thought for a while, tell me what you think.

posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 09:03 PM
Look at everything proposed for the New World Order by the promulgants of 'Project For A New American Century' and show me where any of your ideals are mentioned.

No chance for these corrupt, deceitful, cretinous warmongers from me.

What brand of New World Order are you buying?

posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 10:00 PM
Perhaps these will help though I know more can be found.

"America and the New World Order"

"Common Sense and the New World Order"

And according to this vision of US military--Document: Joint Vision 2010; "21st Century Warriors"


posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 10:21 PM
From Article 1

"When the American President speaks on international issues, his words are taken as being decisive - he is (by virtue of his office) far-and-away the most powerful and influential world leader."

Only decisive thing about the current 'president' is that everyone outside the US knows he is lying.

"Overall policies are to be set by non-elected, corporate-dominated commissions; the world’s economy, information and working conditions are to be managed directly by megacorps; governmental function is to shrink down to administrative matters and police-management of the populace. All this to be enforced globally by an elite-dominated strike force built around the U.S. military and NATO."

Forcefield analysis: anti-globalisation resistance is greater than force of the mega-corporations of today, except in countries with corrupt leadership that can be bought. Corruption is the key. And it opens doors for 'elite-dominated strike forces' too.

Article 2

"The social agenda of the NWO can be summarized as "no more entitlements". In the First World this translates into dismantled social programs, undermining of labor and safety laws, and a general disregard for maintaining a healthy environment or the quality of life. This dismantlement has been facilitated by media propaganda, and accomplished by demagogic government leaders."

This hasn't happened yet where I spend most of my time, and there have certainly been some centrist-right governments for the past 40 years here and in other developed countries who don't buy into this bullsh*t. It is a model for the USA and its sheep, not to be adopted by anyone in the world with common sense.

Article 3

"Military commanders of the future will have implanted brain microchips enabling them to access satellite information in the twinkling of an eye."

Now we're talking. Make that available to intelligent pacifists first and warmongers never.

Something tells me that conservative Americans don't want to face up to the fact that the current lies of the Bush administration, in all their glory, have nothing to do with threats to national security but date back to 1990's envisioning by these bastards:

posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 11:29 PM
Found this article quit interesting:

Power & Duty: U.S. Action is Crucial to Maintaining World Order
Gary Schmitt
Los Angeles Times
March 23, 2003

As the war in Iraq unfolds, the awesome military power of the United States is on exhibit for the whole world to see. Despite the real but mostly tacit support of friends and allies around the world, America is exercising its power in the face of world opinion decidedly opposed to the war. In some respects, the very fact that the United States can do so is even more confirmation to its critics around the world that American power seemingly unhinged from all restraints -- be it the United Nations or world opinion -- is as much a danger to world order as perhaps Saddam Hussein himself.

Critics of America’s preeminent role in the world, like France’s president, are quick to see the supposed problems related to a unipolar world. What they are far slower to offer is a realistic alternative. For example, for all the huffing and puffing about the need to have this war sanctioned by the United Nations, it goes without saying that neither Paris nor Beijing is especially eager to constrain its national security decisions because of U.N. mandates. Indeed, in the continuing case of North Korea’s violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, France and China have actively sought to push the matter away from U.N. consideration.

The fact is, the U.N. can only operate by majority consensus, and this means that its decisions will be governed by the particular interests of the individual member states of the Security Council -- not some disembodied, benign voice of the “international community.” As the failure to back up its own resolutions on Iraq and to act decisively in the cases of Rwanda and Kosovo in the 1990s shows, the U.N. cannot be trusted to be the sole arbiter of these matters.

No. The unavoidable reality is that the exercise of American power is key to maintaining what peace and order there is in the world today. Imagine a world in which the U.S. didn’t exercise this power. Who would handle a nuclear-armed North Korea? Who would prevent the one-party state of China from acting on its pledge to gather democratic Taiwan into its fold? Who would be left to hunt down Islamic terrorists increasingly interested in getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction? Who could have contained, let alone defeated, a tyrant like Hussein, preventing him from becoming the dominant power in the Middle East? Who can prevent the Balkans from slipping back into chaos? Who is going to confront regimes like those of Iran, Syria and Libya as they rush to get their own weapons of mass destruction? Given how little most of our allies and critics spend on defense, certainly not them.

As Robert Kagan notes in “Of Paradise and Power,” his seminal examination of the growing distance between the strategic perspectives of America and Europe, the United States today is in much the same position as Marshal Will Kane, played by Gary Cooper in the movie “High Noon.” The townspeople are more than happy to live in the peace brought by his law enforcement but are nervous and resentful when the bad guys come back to town looking for him, to enact their revenge. The residents shortsightedly believe that if the marshal would just leave town, there would be no trouble. Of course, the reverse is true. Without Kane to protect them, the town would quickly fall into an anarchic state, paralyzed by ruthless gunslingers.

The simple but fundamental point is that it matters more what purposes our power serves than that we have power. President Bush made it clear in his address to the nation last week that removing Hussein was necessary not only because of the threat he poses but also because it could begin a process of reform in a region long in need of it. Cutting the nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorists requires transforming regimes that possess these weapons and cooperate with or spawn terrorists.

Like the townsfolk in “High Noon,” this naturally makes many in the world anxious. Change always brings risk and instability. But the danger in doing nothing -- of pretending that the volatile Middle East mix of failing regimes, rogue states, weapons of mass destruction and terrorism can be contained safely if we only let it alone -- is far greater. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on the floor of Parliament during a debate over Iraq last week, “What was shocking about 11 September was not just the slaughter of the innocent, but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000, and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists’ rejoicing.”

But change also brings opportunity. The president’s decision to remove Hussein from power and his work to create a viable, democratic Iraq has already led to a number of positive steps in the region. In Iran, moderates, emboldened by the possibility of a democratic Iraq, are again pushing to reform that cleric-dominated state. In Saudi Arabia, the homeland of 15 of the 19 terrorists who carried out the attacks on the United States, the royal family has for the first time begun serious deliberations with reformers on how to transform and democratize the country. In the Palestinian territories, Yasser Arafat reluctantly agreed to give up much of his day-to-day control over the Palestinian Authority to a new prime minister. And in Egypt, the government has just released its most vocal human-rights advocate.

None of these steps amounts to a revolution in the region. Nor do they mean that positive political transformation throughout the Islamic world will happen easily or without fits, starts and dead ends. However, the early signs suggest that the president is right to believe that the instinct for liberty is not missing from Middle East genes.

Finally, and lest we forget, America is employing its power in this war to free a people who have suffered under one of history’s most terrible tyrants. As New York Times correspondent John Burns reported from Baghdad on the eve of the start of the war, “Iraqis have suffered beyond, I think, the common understanding of the United States from the repression of the past 30 years here. And many, many Iraqis are telling us now, not always in the whispers we have heard in the past but now in quite candid conversations, that they are waiting for America to come and bring them liberty.” And, he said on PBS, “while they are very, very fearful of course of the bombing, of damage to Iraq’s infrastructure ... there is also no doubt -- no doubt -- that there are many, many Iraqis who see what is about to happen here as the moment of liberation.”

That’s a dream only American power can inspire.

posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 11:32 PM
MaskedAvatar you of all people surely can not believe in this "NWO" thing.


posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 11:41 PM
I believe in the existence and mobilization of the PNAC flavour of NWO, and that Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are very much alive and well in their attempts to bring about a world of "truth", "justice" and "the American way". Believe it or not.

Trouble is, no-on else in the world wants a bar of it and knows that instead it is lies, corruption, and the crony capitalism way. Eventually, they will pack up their toys and go home. But I'm concerned then about how the legitimate national owners of the assets and resources they have stripped, can recoup their profits.

Currently, Bush and his cronies are signing bilateral agreements all over the place that mean that other (corrupt) countries will not hold them to account for considerable breaches of international law. Do you see that in your media? Probably not. Do you look for it? You should. That is the truth these bastards do not want you to access.

Without doubt, the Bush administration is the most corrupt, morally bankrupt, deceitful and useless government in the history of the United States of America.

They cannot fulfill their promise of a New World Order because of their bungling ineptitude, but unfortunately they can do considerable damage on the way.

posted on Jun, 30 2003 @ 02:01 PM
There'z no way i'm gonna sit around and let them take over.. Do u want ur life to end? we can't sit around and "see what happens" because when it happens it's too late. Join up and fight back against this new threat to the human individuality.

posted on Jul, 1 2003 @ 07:14 AM

Give me a three point plan to 'fight back' without the use of guns and I'm in.

posted on Jul, 1 2003 @ 07:21 AM
Yeah it is possible. Have any of you read my arguements on the New World Order in the first debate I was in with Gryffen. If you haven't I suggest you do. I show or try to show how the NWO can be good. Remember the NWO doesn't necassarily mean evil people like the bilderbergers and the skull and bones society. The New World Order can be a united effort among nations.

The thing that makes the NWO bad no matter what is the fact that radicals and ultra nationalists will spoil the party. There will always be someone or something trying to undermine power. That is what will cause the NWO to be weak. That is the ultimate weakness of civility. The power, and people's desire for it.



log in