• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order

I think you are headed in the right direction, but aren't completely seeing Kissinger's point. The U.S., like most countries in the "world order" are experiencing a paradox. It is this paradox that is undermining the established world order. The U.S.'s role in all of this is to reevaluate its position in the world, and determine what it can do, when, how, and to what end. This is a transitional presidency and a transitional geopolitical experience.

Is the paradox based on Nations individual concerns are not aligned with global cooperation towards trade and peace?
 
Why? Maybe because Bush invaded the wrong country, ****ed it up and then went to clean brush up in Crawford, Texas.
But why is Obama's "vote-Present" strategy better than Bush's strategy?
 
Is the paradox based on Nations individual concerns are not aligned with global cooperation towards trade and peace?

Yes, that's largely Kissinger's point. The nation-state has largely promoted economic liberalism and globalization as both good for the world's population and good for itself, although economic globalization erodes the interests of the nation-state.
 
And we have the wrong man in the WH for this transition.

I'm not entirely convinced of that. I think the Arab Spring rally was over-exaggerated from interventionist liberals (of which Obama was mostly symbolically pandering to) and conservatives (who wanted to temporarily revive the reputation of the previous Bush administration), but in many regards, the U.S. is in this position because that's about all it wants to do and can do. It can neither entirely dismiss the last 10 years of military interventionism, nor the past 20-30 years of democratic internationalism, but it can't brazenly believe that its exceptional nature endows it with the power to reshape a region of the world without a liberal tradition from those it wishes to aid and reform. In many regards (though certainly not in all ways), a GOP presidency would resemble an Obama Presidency: stuck trying to maintain some semblance of what it sought to do in the past decade, but no longer willing to continue the march forward.
 
But why is Obama's "vote-Present" strategy better than Bush's strategy?

Thus far, I don't know what Obama's strategy is going to be. I do know that Bush's strategy was to invade the wrong country.
 
Yes, that's largely Kissinger's point. The nation-state has largely promoted economic liberalism and globalization as both good for the world's population and good for itself, although economic globalization erodes the interests of the nation-state.

Somehow, I believe that's in the interest of keeping the corporate international growth trending upwards in the belief that the Markets are the primal indicator for economic health. The politicians believe we're so globally interconnected with trade and commerce that if one close major nation falls, we will all eventually suffer. And that only an endless cycle of continued growth is a healthy way to financially prosper. Though there's probably some truth to that, what really happens is ultimately wealthier nations lose a substantial portion of their middle class production jobs and wages to emerging third world countries that offer cheaper labor and production costs.

Excessive open trade doesn't benefit wealthier nations, as much as poorer countries and international industries that take advantage of that belief. There needs to be a balance between protecting national interests and allowing corporate hegemony to influence American politics, to the point of rigging the system to favor their executive officers and shareholders wealth at the expense of the average population.
 
Kissinger should have no credibility. He accomplished little and is responsible for the violent deaths of thousands, maybe millions.

We can not impose order on the world. At best we can aim for a relatively peaceful and safe time. America does not have the right, ability or credibility to impose our sense of order on the rest of the world and attempts to do so will only create more violence and disorder. Besides defending ourselves, the best thing and only thing we should do militarilly is to try to reduce the amount of genocide. Developing an American culture that is a healthy and fair and sets a good example that others will want to follow is also a reasonable goal.
 
Last edited:
America's exceptional nature seems to have taken a wrong turn somewhere when invading Iraq for preconceived notions. Now we're directionless as a world power, trying to desperately hold together failed democracies in the ME, and fight terrorism with the wind.

Putin must of seen the lack of conviction in the current admin to gamble attacking the Ukraine. We should've been watching out for the real threats to our security and financial progress and not wasting so much money, lives and resources chasing dessert ghosts for decades.

Yeah yeah, it's Bush's fault. :roll: How about something new. Trotting that out everyday isn't going to solve the problem.

It is not about Bush.

It is about learning from past successes and mistakes.

I think we need to look at past events with a lot more perspective than is allowed.

People who cannot constrictively criticize errors in judgment (especially huge ones)when it is their own side, we are doomed to future even bigger mistakes.
 
Thus far, I don't know what Obama's strategy is going to be. I do know that Bush's strategy was to invade the wrong country.


You said Obama's strategy was better like you had something to compare.

Here's the thing ... rather than ask Obama " What is your strategy?", the question to Obama should be "What is your objective?".

We shouldn't ask, and he shouldn't tell, what his strategy is.
But he could certainly tell us what his objective is.
 
Kissinger should have no credibility. He accomplished little and is responsible for the violent deaths of thousands, maybe millions.

A poor opinion. When Kissinger speaks, even many serious analysts and scholars on the anti-war Left listen intently.
 
Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order - WSJ



Obama better get his **** together. He should be calling in some experienced people.

I think that the country has ensnared ourselvs actually. We destabelized the ME and started this free for all and now we're stuck with the consequences and the country is sick of sending our people over there for little of nothing in return. This ISIS thing is a very big deal, and I for one would sign up to go because this reminds me too much of 1930s Europe and the problem is ISIS acts like the 1960s Viet Cong: they can melt into the population; here one minute gone the next and the civilian population just becomes fodder. That is a huge problem for any type of plan. Amassing drones might work, but...

I'm convinced that this is why Obama is having trouble. So, the other option is going in there full on with - 200,000 troops? And from where? No, we' really blew it from the outset: had we sent 500,000 into Afghanistan: and on 9-12-2001 that idea would have been very easily pulled off, we could have just set up shop in the ME and I don't think we'd be having all this nonsense now. I think that the western world hjas to pull together now and treat the ME as a very very dangerous threat to everybody and act accordingly: you're either for us or again' us.
 
Kissinger should have no credibility. He accomplished little and is responsible for the violent deaths of thousands, maybe millions...

Détente, which paved the way for the end of the Cold War and the U.S. opening to China are seminal achievements that have long-lasting global implications. To say he accomplished "little" is to ignore both history and historical context. That the U.S. was involved in numerous conflicts related to the Cold War is a separate matter. The Vietnam War was launched far before Kissinger had any government role. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge who were responsible for Cambodia's genocide were opposed by the U.S., not supported by it.
 
Kissinger should have no credibility. He accomplished little and is responsible for the violent deaths of thousands, maybe millions.

We can not impose order on the world. At best we can aim for a relatively peaceful and safe time. America does not have the right, ability or credibility to impose our sense of order on the rest of the world and attempts to do so will only create more violence and disorder. Besides defending ourselves, the best thing and only thing we should do militarilly is to try to reduce the amount of genocide. Developing an American culture that is a healthy and fair and sets a good example that others will want to follow is also a reasonable goal.

Sure, all the Arab and Muslim countries will want to be like the US when we are fair and set good examples for the world. What naive baloney...
 
Why? Maybe because Bush invaded the wrong country, ****ed it up and then went to clean brush up in Crawford, Texas.

What about Obama's Arab Spring? Liberals don't seem to remember the violence Obama perpetuated in the ME, overturning secular rulers and allowing Islamists to infiltrate many of those countries. Now they want to instill Sharia law, declare caliphate and spread jihad across the world.

Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has invaded most of the Middle East.

Yep, great plan alright.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063705858 said:
What about Obama's Arab Spring? Liberals don't seem to remember the violence Obama perpetuated in the ME, overturning secular rulers and allowing Islamists to infiltrate many of those countries. Now they want to instill Sharia law, declare caliphate and spread jihad across the world.

Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has invaded most of the Middle East.

Yep, great plan alright.

You'll have to say silly things and argue with yourself, I'm going to bed. Dreams are better than fiction.
 
If anyone knows about the New World Order it would be Kissinger. I hear he is a member of their inner circle.

That's quite amazing, do you have an evidence of this group or his membership?
 
I'm not entirely convinced of that. I think the Arab Spring rally was over-exaggerated from interventionist liberals (of which Obama was mostly symbolically pandering to) and conservatives (who wanted to temporarily revive the reputation of the previous Bush administration), but in many regards, the U.S. is in this position because that's about all it wants to do and can do. It can neither entirely dismiss the last 10 years of military interventionism, nor the past 20-30 years of democratic internationalism, but it can't brazenly believe that its exceptional nature endows it with the power to reshape a region of the world without a liberal tradition from those it wishes to aid and reform. In many regards (though certainly not in all ways), a GOP presidency would resemble an Obama Presidency: stuck trying to maintain some semblance of what it sought to do in the past decade, but no longer willing to continue the march forward.

He's the wrong man because he doesn't like foreign policy and doesn't want to deal with it. His primary objective is social justice within the US, and foreign policy stuff is of no interest. He came to office with no experience in it, and it wasn't part of his agenda.
 
He's the wrong man because he doesn't like foreign policy and doesn't want to deal with it. His primary objective is social justice within the US, and foreign policy stuff is of no interest. He came to office with no experience in it, and it wasn't part of his agenda.

The only part foreign policy played in his agenda was to have the US back away. Which he told us he would do, and he has done - to our detriment. He did so in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Central and South America. The only place he seems to be interested in, is Asia, and he's pissed off most of our Asian friends and enemies in the process. A rare accomplishment in foreign policy, if I do say so.
 
Back
Top Bottom