lockedaway
Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007 Status: offline
|
There are three Presidents (according to Jeane Kirkpatric who could probably help you fathom why we went to war) that tried to usher in "New World Orders." The first was Woodrow Wilson with the League of Nations, which proved impotent. The second was FDR with the United Nations, which has proven itself to be utterly impotent without U.S. forces in Nato. The third was George Herbert Walker Bush after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Bush's coalition proved to be unweildy and time consuming and was criticized sharpley by Margaret Thatcher. Slick Willy tried to pursue the "New World Order" by nation building and that proved to be more than impotent, even disasterous. Bush Jr. is still humping this ridiculous, impotent and ineffective New World Order thing, to a degree, with less emphasis on trying to build a coalition. (Thatcher's criticism was that it was almost impossible to get a consensus on a coalition about going to war and in the time it took to try to create one, millions of lives could be lost and nations had to be able to act where there was a clear imperative.) So...yes, it is fair to compare Wilson, FDR, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. in the notion of spreading democracy by collaberative means. It has never worked and it probably never will. Concerning Nixon and Vietnam, Nixon ended the Vietnam War with the Christmas bombings (which didn't happen over Christmas) which forced the Viet Cong to return to the bargaining table and the entering into the Treaty of Paris. Vietnam was divided between the North and the South and the U.S. pledged itself to re-new bombing Hanoi and other targets should the North invade the South. Then calls for Nixon's impeachment began heating up, the North DID invade the South and Senator Ted Kennedy (Ted "more people have died in Kennedy's car than at 3 mile Island") was the loudest and most strident voice amongst the Senate for the abandonment of that pledge, which the U.S. did in disgrace. Then came Pol Pott, the Khmer Rouge, millions and millions dead and close to 100,000 Vietnamese boat people to be settled in Florida and Arkansas among other places. Now Kennedy is trying to torpedo his country again (together with McCain) by advancing , essentially, an amnesty bill for 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. The brokerage firm of Bear Sterns, which did it's own study, came up with a figure of closer to 30 million illegals. You decide which one you want to believe. The United States' problem with the middle east will cease to be an issue soon enough. If this amnesty bill is passed, we will cease to be a very relevant player on the world stage in 30 years or less. As the Republican party becomes irrelevant (because the illegals will most certainly become democrats) and we become a one party system, entitlements will multiply without abatement (making the U.S., for all intents and purposes, a socialist system), tax rates will double and, perhaps, triple (imagine a 90% income tax) and private enterprises will become nationalized. It has only taken the U.S. from the 1986 amnesty until now to be in this situation. Of course there are other issues like the pregnancy rate being just slightly below 0% since 1970 and the causes for same but that is a subject for a different thread. Suffice it to say that within 2-3 generations' time, the U.S. will be entirely marginalized as a world force.
|