PDA

View Full Version : Joe Biden’s New World Order Speech




evilfunnystuff
08-24-2008, 12:24 PM
Joe Biden’s New World Order Speech

In his speech, “On the Threshold of the New World Order: A Rebirth for the United Nations,” Biden called for meddling in the former Soviet Union and China, imposing a “free economy” on these countries — i.e., allowing the international bankers to freely loot and pillage — and expanding NATO and allowing it to operate outside of its territory.

Posted on the University of Delware website, UpDate - Vol. 12, No. 9, Page 1 October 29, 1992.

Sen. Biden returns to campus during United Nations week U.S. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since 1972, said last Thursday he did not understand the importance of collective security for the nations

of the world until he graduated from the University of Delaware in 1965.

In a speech celebrating United Nations Week, Biden said professor emeritus Leroy Bennett and other political science professors who taught him were wise to espouse the value of the United Nations as a valuable peacekeeping tool. Meeting with world leaders, Biden said he has “on more than one occasion, been brought back in my mind to classes I took with Dr. Bennett,” a man Biden called “well ahead of his time.”

In his speech in Clayton Hall, “On the Threshold of the New World Order: A Rebirth for the United Nations,” Biden said the world’s leaders must adopt a new understanding of security. “Collective security today must encompass not only the security of nations,” he said, “but also mankind’s security in a global environment that has proven vulnerable to debilitating changes wrought by man’s own endeavors.

“Thus, in setting an American agenda for a new world order, we must begin with a profound alteration in traditional thought,” he said.

Speaking to about 150 faculty and students, Biden said the United States should “buttress stable democracy in the former Soviet empire” and “champion the cause of democracy in China.”

Biden criticized President George Bush’s Soviet policies, saying the “administration, if not absent, has been little more than an onlooker.”

The senator said the United States should deliver more “educational and professional” assistance to the countries of the former Soviet Union. The goal, he said, must be to “foster the conditions and institutions necessary for a free economy and a free body politic to thrive.”

Very little money would be needed from the American government to make great strides toward assisting in the privatization of the former Soviet Union, Biden said.

Together with other nations, the United States could help stabilize the currencies now used in the independent Soviet countries, he said. Other efforts could be aimed at establishing legal codes for business practice, taxation and property ownership, he said.

Biden said the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War also give the United States an opportunity to slash the number of nuclear weapons now available. He said the START treaty ratified by the Senate early in October limits Russia and the United States to possessing no more than 9,000 nuclear warheads each, but said “more dramatic progress” could be made to reduce the nuclear threat.

“We should seek a steady, mutual draw-down to a ceiling of no more than 500 warheads (per side),” he said.

Representatives of the United Nations should be used to monitor the dismantling of the weapons, he said. “We should cut the Gordian knot of difficult dismantlement by acting immediately to sequester all warheads to be eliminated,” he suggested.

Biden also advocated a global ban on the production of weapons-grade missile material and a comprehensive test ban treaty for all countries with nuclear capabilities. He said the United States and other countries should commit military forces to exclusive use by the United Nations’ Security Council, which would enforce nuclear agreements.

Since the United States is a permanent member of the council, with the power to veto multinational military action, Biden said there is no risk of having Americans troops drawn into conflicts the government does not wish to join.

Biden stressed that, if nuclear containment efforts fail, the United States “must be able to use force to stop rogue nations like North Korea” from collecting additional weapons of mass destruction. The “new world order” also should include a new role for NATO, he said.

“NATO should abandon its anachronistic posture-the defense of allied territory against direct attack-to make a great leap forward and adopt peace-keeping outside NATO territory as a formal alliance mission,” he said.

Biden also attacked Bush’s handling of human rights’ violations in China, as well as his environmental record.

“The president has opposed every congressional effort to impose serious sanctions or even link trade to more reasonable Chinese policies on human rights and the sale of dangerously destabilizing arms,” he said.

“No one can expect that trade sanctions against Beijing would yield a sudden transformation of that regime. But American foreign policy should leave no doubt-and the Bush administration has left much doubt- that the United States stands squarely on the side of China’s brave and aspiring democrats-to whom power will ultimately flow.”

Of President Bush’s refusal to sign treaties at the United Nations’ Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Biden said, “Our blunder was both tactical and strategic.”

“For the United States, it should become a paramount priority to promote American environmental technologies and services around the world,” he said. “We do not, despite what the president or anyone else may say, have to choose between jobs and the environment.”

In a question-and-answer period following the speech, one audience member drew applause for suggesting that Biden would make a good secretary of state if Bill Clinton wins the presidential election. Biden said he was flattered but did not think he would receive such an appointment.

-Stephen Steenkamer

Infowars
August 24, 2008
http://www.infowars.com/?p=4140

Captain America
08-24-2008, 12:30 PM
God help US, or we can help ourselves and arm yourselves!

I wouldnt mind getting my hands on a AA-12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

RSLudlum
08-24-2008, 01:02 PM
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.


____________

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

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.

BuddyRey
08-24-2008, 07:05 PM
In a related turn of events, Terry McAuliffe almost lost his composure and said "New World Order" in relation to Obama/Biden on CNN recently, but caught himself just in time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynH8cWqDy3A

lucius
08-24-2008, 07:12 PM
In a related turn of events, Terry McAuliffe almost lost his composure and said "New World Order" in relation to Obama/Biden on CNN recently, but caught himself just in time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynH8cWqDy3A

He kinda stumbled over that.

Bruno
08-24-2008, 07:15 PM
He kinda stumbled over that.

Holy shit. He almost turned green when he realized he almost slipped. Did the interviewer jump in to save him, or what that coincidence?

acroso
08-24-2008, 07:27 PM
link to biden speech plz

Andrew Ryan
08-24-2008, 07:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynH8cWqDy3A
Lol this is the best laugh i've had all day :D

RSLudlum
08-24-2008, 07:52 PM
In a related turn of events, Terry McAuliffe almost lost his composure and said "New World Order" in relation to Obama/Biden on CNN recently, but caught himself just in time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynH8cWqDy3A

LOL...thanks for the laugh...

OOOOOPS!!! What was that he said?? New World what?? Take over this government and bring us into the New World..what...Wait, I thought there's no such thing as the NWO?? I guess those Republicrats are just a bunch of conspiracy nutz huh?? Who they been listening to, that nut Alex Jones on Infowars.com??

:D

Mesogen
08-24-2008, 09:22 PM
God help US, or we can help ourselves and arm yourselves!

I wouldnt mind getting my hands on a AA-12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

JESUS CHRIST!!:eek:
Wish I wasn't so po'.

tribute_13
08-24-2008, 09:26 PM
I used to like him, but now I understand why Obama picked him as a running mate.

Standing Like A Rock
08-24-2008, 09:26 PM
In a related turn of events, Terry McAuliffe almost lost his composure and said "New World Order" in relation to Obama/Biden on CNN recently, but caught himself just in time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynH8cWqDy3A

scares me more that he said the two men would be "taking over the government."

Bruno
08-24-2008, 10:08 PM
[QUOTE=BuddyRey;1628349]In a related turn of events, Terry McAuliffe almost lost his composure and said "New World Order" in relation to Obama/Biden on CNN recently, but caught himself just in time.



Has this been dugg?

BuddyRey
08-25-2008, 12:04 AM
[QUOTE=BuddyRey;1628349]In a related turn of events, Terry McAuliffe almost lost his composure and said "New World Order" in relation to Obama/Biden on CNN recently, but caught himself just in time.



Has this been dugg?

I'm not sure. Anyone want to volunteer? (I don't know how to post Digg articles. :o )

PatriotOne
08-25-2008, 02:06 PM
Can we all stop arguing about whether the NWO is real or not yet? I think most people's time would be better spent in finding out what the NWO will bring and who is behind it. This is nothing to ignore.

Terry McCauliffe looked horrified he said New World Or..............:eek: In fact I think that needs it's own thread :p.

Truth Warrior
08-25-2008, 03:32 PM
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/nwo-logo_130x.gif

TC95
08-25-2008, 03:47 PM
[QUOTE=BuddyRey;1628349]In a related turn of events, Terry McAuliffe almost lost his composure and said "New World Order" in relation to Obama/Biden on CNN recently, but caught himself just in time.



Has this been dugg?

Yeah, it's been dugg.

http://digg.com/politics/Hillary_s_campaign_chairman_accidentally_says_New_ World

Indy4Chng
08-25-2008, 04:03 PM
That goes up there with the congresswoman who blurted "socialize" the oil companies and whoops we almost let the truth out to the public... we wouldn't want that.

Boy does this piss me off!!