This phrase was originally one of Woodrow Wilson's as he envisioned the League of Nations following WWI. It came up again following WWII and the creation of the United Nations and NATO. It arose again with Mikhail Gorbachev at the end of the Cold War. Finally, George H. W. Bush used it in a speech to the Joint Houses of Congress on 9/11/1990.

But what exactly does 'New World Order' mean? And what plans have been set in place that successfully achieve whatever your concept is of a 'new world order?'

The phrase "New World Order" always brings thoughts of fascism, tyranny and opression to my mind.

The problem is, I couldn't actually tell you why that is...

Probably because it was a phrase Hitler used often to describe what he envisioned after his conquest of Europe. A new world order (he said those words) along with the thousand year Reich.

So it makes you think of fascism because it was a phrase used by the Nazis.

Dax:

The question then is Dax,why American leaders like "Bill Clinton and Obama" use Nazi comments like New world order today.

It's because Obama is black! Black, I tell you! Black and clearly part of a Nazi master race conspiracy! Why, I bet he's the head man in charge. Think about it. A black man leading the Nazi 4th Reich! No one would suspect. Brilliant!

Well Cass, according to the New World Order Handbook, the phrase can have many different meanings. It can mean a nazi reich type world, or it can mean a world where only people who own oil have any money, or it can mean a world where cute singing animals dance happily alongside you as you traipse through the woods.

Other than that, I have no idea why they used the phrase. It's a really stupid phrase to use, like talking about an "American Reich" Maybe they think we've forgotten, or never knew, or were too stupid to remember the original meaning, but we haven't forgotten, we do know, and we're not stupid.

Now serving #28, since Ray has been on #27 since 2002.

I asked the question because of what Cass had said in a post in a different thread, "What went wrong in Iraq," when he said,


This interested me, so I looked it up and read the speech given by George H. W. Bush when he addressed the Joint Houses of Congress. In it, he was defending the First Gulf War wherein Hussein marched into Kuwait and tried to annex it. During that speech he said,


So I ask again, what does the phrase mean now and what has been put into place--or continued--in order to achieve a new world order as you see it?

Jack has said that the phrase brings up thoughts of "fascism, tyranny and oppression" in his mind. Cass seems to feel fear of elitism. Both men are British. We've had a Chinese man participate in the Forums who has also evidenced a 'fear' of America.

We have the UN Security Council; we have the EU; we have the WTO; we have the Group of Eight--Do any of these organizations have anything to do with a New World Order? These are all trade 'power groups,' and world trade seems to be a part of the new world order.

We also have the US agression in Iraq which has gone from getting rid of Hussein's non-existant NBC weapons to an international war on terrorism, costing thousands of Americans their lives or their limbs and their minds. It may have started as a way of showing Saudi Arabia how the US can retaliate against countries that supply 'terrorists' with aid, as Law maintains--but, if so, why attack Iraq?

The 'Forgotten War' in Afghanistan was supposed to wipe out the Taliban and al Quaida. It's done neither.

Does the New World Order mean that the US will bring peace and democracy to the world no matter what it costs to either itself or other countries--even when it brings war?

And, Cass, could you please reference where either Bill Clinton or Barak Obama has used the phrase 'new world order?'

Interestingly, al Maliki now wants a time-table for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq as a part of his oil-sharing agreement with the US.

Ray--I do not hate America. I do not like the image of America as it is now perceived by outside countries.

I experienced a wonderful birthday of the US on the 4th of July--as did many small towns across the US. Next year, I hope our Towns' vets--from VietNam to Afghanistan/Iraq--will be a recognized part of our birthday celebration. They have given so much.

So, speaking of non-existent nuclear weapons programs do we have any more news on that 500 tons of yellow cake uranium that a joint U.S./Canadian operation has shipped out of Iraq since the invasion?

Unenriched, low-grade uranium that is commonly traded for nuclear power generation. It hardly points to a nuclear weapons program.

Nice try though.

Oh, of course not. It must have been for peaceful uses. Iran has peaceful nuclear programs, too. Nothing to worry about. Go back to sleep.

Iran is as power hungry as the rest of us so it's not hard to imagine them wanting to build more nuclear power plants as it's a great source of electricity.

I won't put it past them that they would like to have a bomb as a deterrent against attack from the US or Israel but I'd be willing to bet that they're far less likely to use one preemptively than, say, a country like North Korea.

As for Iraq, they acquired their nuclear materials before 1991 and there was no evidence that he had an enrichment program, nor carried on his nuclear aspirations, after the first Gulf War.

I'd like some clarification on this. My interpretation of the above passage is an implication that my thoughts of "fascism, tranny and oppression" when I think of a NWO are due to a fear of America. Was there that implication?

I have no fear of America. I do not fear any nation. It is possible that Dax's idea is correct, that the connection to Hitler and Nazis has a lot to do with those thoughts. It has nothing whatsoever to do with America, since until I read posts in this thread, I had no knowledge of statements made by Bush Senior on the topic of NWO.

I think the plan for a New World Order was set years and years ago, even before World War I.

Ibelieve that there are those that will has it's tentacles in every Government of this world, those who have the monetary to influence the powers within those governments. These people have their own agenda for this world, abd this has carried over generation to generation. But it's not those who you think. It's the people that walk in the shadows, and are alway's in the background.

There are forces in this world that wish to create this world in their image and to impose their vision on this world, whether they succeed or not is another story.

As for what Saddam intended to do with that yellowcake, the fact that he just let it sit there after the reactor shut down in 1981 should tell you something. Do you believe anyone in the U.S. would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq if his justification had been that while there was no nuclear program there, there was still some yellowcake uranium sitting around and maybe someday Saddam Hussein might do something naughty with it?

Tell me that if Bush had tried to justify the invasion of Iraq by saying, "Iraq doesn't have a nuclear program now, and hasn't for years. But dang it, there's some yellow-cake uranium at one of Iraq's abandoned nuclear reactors, and it could get into the wrong hands, so I want to go to war against Iraq and get thousands of U.S. troops killed, anyone but yahoos would have let him do it.

And only those yahoos will support an invasion of Iran...

Make each sentence a paragraph and take out the word 'also' in the third sentence.

I never meant to imply that you were afraid of America, but I think many people are. I also think that the fear stems from interpretations of the phrase as well as how the actions of the US over the last 15 or so years have been interpreted.

America was never attacked on its own soil until 9/11/01. Britain was, however. As a result, we have no direct collective memory of fascism, tyranny and oppression. Britain was directly attacked by Germany which wanted to establish a NWO within Europe.

On 9/11, the US was attacked on its own soil by an amorphous group we immediately labeled 'terrorist.' But, at the time, what was the goal of those terrorists? Why were the Twin Towers targeted, as they had been previousy when a car bomb was set off in the underground garage. I've suggested before that the US may not have been targeted but that it was the WTO that had been targeted.

Why the WTO and not the UN? I believe it's because the WTO has more influence in 'changing' the world than does the UN.

Liz, I believe we were attacked by Japan in the 40's? Also, the first trade tower attacks qualify as an attack on our soil..you know the one in the 90's... The culprits are in prison.

CG, When Pearl Harbor was attacked, Hawaii wasn't a state. Pearl Harbor was a Naval base on a Pacific island.

Would you call the car bomb in the WTO garage an attack on the US or an unsuccessful attack on the WTO?

To be fair I do not wake up everyday wondering if the New World rules the earth or not,I think the answer is pretty clear.Lizbeth I had 2 sites saved that had Bill Clinton and Obama talking about the New World Order but them sites have been lost thanks to my wife,still love her though.

I found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PpMdTmVMpo&NR=1

Today Iran has fired 9 missiles which could hit Israel and some American bases in the middleast.I should be frightened but I am not because I believe the good people of the world are going to wake up before it's to late.Lizbeth don't you think it's funny that our mate Captain America does not want to share his views on this subject I wonder if it is because he believes in the New World Order?

You're kidding, right?

Hell no she's not kidding. Lefties are ashamed of their own country. They accuse their own country of being the cause of all the world's problems, while at the same time excusing terrorists as the righteous.

This is one of the reasons I feel little sympathy for the lefties who whine and cry about how awful America is. I hear Canada is just giddy at the thought of American ex-Patriots finding a new home. Hint, hint.

What the sam hill are you talking about?

How on earth did you extract anything about anyone "accusing their own country of being the cause of all the world's problems, while at the same time excusing terrorists as the righteous"? I saw no such thing.

That was damned weird, Ray.

Without the words "piss" "moan" "whine" "foam" "drool" and "jump up and down" you'd have no means of expressing yourself, would you?

And without pissing, moaning, whining, foaming, drooling and jumping up & down the far left would be stuck for ways to express their viewpoints.

Oh wait. I forgot about throwing food as their prime method of debating invited political pundits with whom they disagree.

. o O (A monkeys-in-the-zoo analogy comes to mind.)

Since when is an American territory not American soil? (your description, not mine)...

define success? ...or unsuccessful? I would call the car bomb in the WTO garage an terrorist attack on American soil. I would also call the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma a terrorist attack on American soil.

The evidence is before you, you can read it with your own eyes. I rest my case, ladies and gentlemen.

I don't recall ever having said that, CG. Law has defined military bases in other countries as being American soil--I think it was in a thread that briefly touched on whether or not McCain was a citizen, since he'd been born in Panama.

I agree that the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma was a terrorist attack--an attack by a domestic terrorist group. It didn't lead to an 'International War on Terrorism,' though. Nor does it have anything to do with a NWO.

Were the two attacks on the WTO in New York attacks against America or attacks against the World Trade Organization? In order to answer that, you have to know a bit about GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which was replaced by the much stronger World Trade Organization. GATT, by the way, was created in 1947, the WTO was established in 1995.

If the attacks were against America, what was the motive? Yes, there were secondary suicide planes--the one that crashed into the Pentagon and the one that was suppossedly aimed at the White House. But the major objectives were the twin towers--the headquarters of the WTO.

On the other hand, the World Trade Organization just may be a part of the New World Order--an idea that has led to the United Nations and that emvisions a united world--a world ruled by a united government and united trade relations.

It's rather science fictiony, isn't it?

Sorry, Lizbeth, but given that the other targets were the Pentagon and (possibly) the White House, one must conclude that the target was America, and not the WTO. I suspect that the Twin Towers were targeted because they were in close proximity, offered an increase change of collapse if they suffered huge trauma, and thus the loss of life would be greater. THat is pure conjecture, of course.

As for the why...well, your guess is as good as mine.

Sorry, Liz...I did no such thing. American military bases in foreign countries are not typically American soil. I cannot off the top of my head think of any such base where the host nation has ceded sovereignty over the territory to the US. What I said in that thread was that US citizenship law defines those born abroad to US citizens as native born US citizens themselves. Please do not distort, misrepresent, or outright fabricate what I have allegedly said in order to support your own statements.

As for your issue...I think it is a manufactured one that exists only in your mind. The attacks of 9/11 were manifestly an attack on the United States and not an attack on the World Trade Organization. The statements of the attackers and their organization make that rather clear. Similarly, as Jack suggests, the target selection makes that abundantly clear. Consider...they struck the economic symbol of America. The struck the military symbol of America. And, they sought to strike the political symbol of America but failed when the passengers intervened.