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.


"How I Learned to Love the New World Order" Article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in The Wall Stree

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:50 AM
Can anyone find this article in full for me? Since Obama has chosen this chap as his running mate, I'm interested in his history...


posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:11 AM
Not following you around or anything lol but if that book is for real I am going to be extremely angry. I mean like wtf ???

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:32 AM
Isn't that a play on "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"?

It has a similar ring.

Is the NWO a weapon of M.A.D.?

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:38 AM
Well he is a member of the wouldnt surprise me...but cant see *How i learned to love the new world order* As a title lol

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 07:48 AM
Its all so obvious. It makes me ill. I only had to google the specifics for five seconds to find anything about this. I can't find that full article though so I'd like to educate myself on this guy before I go any further with this.


posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 07:50 AM
This is how aussies treat the NWO ...

Oh and after Iraq Bull# heres what we think about joining the "Army"

Oh dear all on the govment ta>< payed National TV broadcaster.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ROO-meh]

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:38 PM
If someone can find this please post it. Its real.

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:42 PM
I don't now of that article, but I do know that most articles are describing him as:

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is one of the most influential foreign policy voices in Congress. An internationalist and strong supporter of the United Nations, he is a leading critic of what he sees as the vague, unilateralist approach of President Bush.

Definition of Internationalism other words a blending of the cultures, money, and leadership of world government...he is definitely CFR

Of note too is this seeming Freudian slip by Obama: Obama calls Biden the "next president"
Hmmmmmmm....... this leads to question, what does Obama know?

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 04:04 AM
Counterpoint: How I Learned to Love the New World Order
Biden, Joseph R Jr. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 23, 1992. pg. A13

Abstract (Summary)
Joseph R. Biden Jr defends his view that the Pentagon's new strategy which appoints the US as a sort of world monitor could render the US a hollow superpower. Biden explains why he reacted the way he did to the plan.

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 05:44 PM

Is this the article in question?

[edit on 28-8-2008 by zzzzz]

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 12:58 AM
reply to post by zzzzz

How I Learned to Love the New World Order

Biden, Joseph R Jr.
Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 23, 1992. pg.

Abstract (Summary)
Joseph R. Biden Jr defends his view that the Pentagon's new strategy which appoints the US as a sort of world monitor could render the US a hollow superpower. Biden explains why he reacted the way he did to the plan.


Counterpoint: How I Learned to Love the New World Order
Biden, Joseph R Jr. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 23, 1992. pg.

Imagine my surprise when a Wall Street Journal editorial appointed me dean of the Pat Buchanan school of neo-isolationism. My credentials? Believing that the Pentagon's new strategy -- America as "Globocop" -- could render the United States a hollow superpower. All agree we need the military capacity to defend our vital interests -- by ourselves when need be. The question is grand strategy. With the Journal's endorsement, the Pentagon has called for a Pax Americana: The U.S. should cast so large a military shadow that no rival dare emerge.

American hegemony might be a pleasant idea, but is it economically, politically or even militarily wise? Bristling with weapons, we would continue our economic decline, while rising industrial and financial giants in Europe and Asia viewed our military pretensions with indifference or contempt.

Defense Secretary Dick Cheney outdid even the Journal, dipping deep into the well of Cold War argumentation to accuse Pax Americana critics of thinking "America's world presence is somehow immoral and dangerous.
" Why doesn't the Journal stop the namecalling, get its schools sorted out, and court an honest debate over America's proper role in the new world order?

Pat Buchanan's "America First" preaches martyrdom: We've been suckered into fighting "other" people's battles and defending "other" people's interests. With our dismal economy, this siren song holds some appeal.

But most Americans, myself included, reject 1930s-style isolationism. They expect to see the strong hand of American leadership in world affairs, and they know that economic retreat would yield nothing other than a lower standard of living. They understand further that many security threats -- the spread of high-tech weapons, environmental degradation, overpopulation, narcotics trafficking, migration -- require global solutions.

What about America as globocop? First, our 21st-century strategy has to be a shade more clever than Mao's axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power also emanates from a solid bank balance, the ability to dominate and penetrate markets, and the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout.

Second, the plan is passive where it needs to be aggressive. The Journal endorses a global security system in which we destroy rogue-state threats as they arise. Fine, but let's prevent such problems early rather than curing them late. Having contained Soviet communism until it dissolved, we need a new strategy of "containment" -- based, like NATO, on collective action, but directed against weapons proliferation.

The reality is that we can slow proliferation to a snail's pace if we stop irresponsible technology transfers. Fortunately, nearly all suppliers are finally showing restraint. The maverick is China, which persists in hawking sensitive weapons and technology to the likes of Syria, Iran, Libya, Algeria and Pakistan -- even while pledging otherwise.

The Senate has tried to force China's leaders to choose between Third World arms sales (1991 profits of $500 million) and open trade with the U.S. (a $12.5 billion annual Chinese surplus). Even though we have convincing intelligence that China's leaders fear the use of this leverage, the president inexplicably refuses to challenge Beijing.

Weapons containment can't be foolproof; and against a nuclear-armed North Korea, I would support pre-emptive military action if necessary. But let's do our best -- using supplier restraint and sanctions against outlaw sellers and buyers-to avoid having to round up the posse.
Why not an anti-proliferation "czar" in the cabinet to give this objective the prominence it urgently needs?

Third, Pax Americana is a direct slap at two of our closest allies -- Japan and Germany -- and a repudiation of one of our panel1. Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? great postwar triumphs. For years, American leaders argued that building democracy in Europe and Asia would guarantee stability because democracies don't start wars. Now the Pentagon says we must keep our military large enough to persuade Japan and Germany "not to aspire to a greater role even to protect their legitimate interests.

How has our success suddenly become a threat? It hasn't, but the Pentagon plan could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By insulting Tokyo and Berlin, and arrogating to ourselves military stewardship of the world, we may spark the revival no one wants.

Secretary Cheney says he wants the allies to share the burden on defense matters. But Pax Americana puts us on the wrong end of a paradox: Hegemony means that even our allies can force ever greater U.S.
defense spending the more they try to share the burden!

Fourth, collective security doesn't rule out unilateral action. The Journal says I'm among those who want "Americans . . . to trust their security to a global committee." But no one advocates that we repeal the "inherent" right of self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Secretary Cheney says his plan wouldn't undermine support for the U.N. Who would know better than the U.N.'s usually understated secretary general? If implemented, says Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Pentagon's strategy would spell "the end of the U.N." Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? It envisages a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action -- but with a U.S. veto.

Rather than defending military extravagance, the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador; and rebuilding a weakened and debt-burdened America.

If Pentagon strategists and their kneejerk supporters could broaden their horizons, they would see how our superpower status is best assured. We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security.


Sen. Biden is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's European Affairs Subcommittee.


Thought I'd post it in full for easier reading

[edit on 8/29/2008 by iceofspades]

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:33 AM
what if everyone dropped their guns ... looked the "enemy " in the eye and asked did i think for myself to kill you i don't remember getting out my bed and wanting to harm another.

to to win a war does anyone have to die ... "quote" my 12 year old daughter

interesting t!mes

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 01:33 PM
The confusion is that for 99%+ of the world population the phrase "New world order" does not mean an organisation, but a situation whereby the international power balance between states or ideologies has shifted significantly. For example most people would say that the collapse of the soviet empire, and with it communism, represented a new world order.

It's only (some) conspiracy theorists that say New World Order represents an organisation.

It's clear that Biden is using the common usage here, and not referring to some nefarious organisation planning to take over the world.

I like the article by the way, this guy seems very astute about the US's position in the world and how best it can us it's, still enormous, power.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:44 PM
Wow, that article answered a long standing question for me.

Why does the USA push democracy globally and evangelically, when we are no where near being a genuine democracy ourselves.

The answer is that Democracys don't start wars!

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke

The only thing that is clear to me after reading Biden's article is that he believes that he is part of an elitist group supposedly protecting "American" interests. You can call this group or philosophy whatever you like; Council of Foreign Relations, New World Order, etc. I don’t care.

But, calling for us to integrate into a UN Charter doesn't appear to be an Average American's best interest to me. I've read the charter and didn't see the word Citizen any where in it. Neither, did I read anything about a government controlled by the People. I don't believe that Biden's group of elitist have Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in mind for us anymore than the Pax Americana he writes about. Let’s see my choices are; an elitist group that wants to beat me into slavery or an elitist group that wants to regulate me into it using global governance (and by the way global governance does = “taking over the world”).

There seems to me to be a central theme in elitist or global governance mentalities; Power and Control. This stems from the idea that people are unable or unwilling to govern themselves. While this may be true for you, I find it offensive.

You can argue that our Government isn't controlled by the People now either, but the Constitution gives us ways of correcting this, the UN Charter does not. There is a larger movement going on now to do this and I suggest if you are not part of an elitist group, that you investigate it. As for me, I am going to exercise my Constitution right to amend this system this November by voting outside of the two party “elitist” system and support candidates to represent me, the Citizen, by holding to their Oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights instead of dismantling them. I will commit myself to take a more participating role in this process of nonviolent change, until I am forced to exercise my revolutionary right to cast off my suppressors.

Good luck to you FatherLukeDuke in whatever you believe your role in this new world order is!

new topics

top topics


log in