Tags: Standing | Armies | No! | Hit | 'Em | Hard | Yes!

Standing Armies, No! Hit 'Em Hard, Yes!

Monday, 17 September 2001 12:00 AM

And so what is the response of the richest, most-powerful nation on earth? We are told by our media and our politicians that for us, life will never be the same.

We are told by our president and our military that we are in it for the long haul – for years, perhaps decades, but, rest assured, we will prevail.

We are told by the new world order legions that we will need the help and cooperation of our allies and the international community, for this is a war we cannot fight alone.

We are told by the Bretton Woods money experts that our Federal Reserve must fork out $50 billion to the IMF – to "sure up" international markets, when in fact the IMF has frequently bankrolled terrorist and communist states on the backs of U.S. taxpayers.

We are told by the Russians and the Chinese that they "mourn" for our dead and support our resolve to bring about justice, even while they help train and arm these terrorists and, for that matter, don't give a darn about their own people.

We are told by these same Russians and Chinese that this crisis is a godsend, yes, a godsend to unify the world, a solution they have favored since the days of Lenin.

And, finally, we are told that 50,000 American guardsmen will be called up. To do what? To perform domestic policing duties.

Wow! What is this? What kind of pusillanimous, dimwitted, dangerous response are our leaders, the press and our "allies" sending out to the world? It sounds, does it not, like the lingo of internationalism. It sounds, does it not, like the agenda of those who see in every crisis an opportunity to advance or firm up the internationalist mechanism set in motion at Bretton Woods and at San Francisco a half-century or so ago, and the domestic agenda of Bill Clinton following the Oklahoma city "crisis" to federalize our local police services.

But what we want to know is this: If our relatively meagerly financed, meagerly manned, meagerly equipped enemy can strike swiftly, powerfully, efficiently and unilaterally, and cause so much disruption, why can't we, the most powerful nation on earth, do the same in the extreme?

Why, oh, why? Can someone explain it? Here is our suspicion. We are about to be suckered into an arrangement that will be not only a retaliation but also an occupation, not only a U.S. response but also an international one, headed up, most likely, not solely by the United States but also by our NATO "partners."

Isn't it odd, you might ask, that Sen. Biden rejected – indeed, emotionally rejected – the notion in a Q & A session,,following Congress' meeting with the president, of any need to consult the United Nations regarding a U.S. response? Amen. But then leaped for joy that NATO had been consulted (via Colin Powell) and that NATO was behind us and beside us?

It should be odd, because, as this column documented in a seven-part series back in 1999, NATO is a subsidiary organization of the United Nations, is bound by the United Nations Covenant to uphold its principles and purposes, and bound also to consult the U.N. Security Council regarding all of its military actions. In fact, let it be known and remembered that in Korea, thanks to a similar ridiculous arrangement under SEATO, all of MacArthur's military maneuvers were compromised to Russians at the U.N., who passed them on to their North Korean and Chinese comrades, thus insuring that tens of thousands of American boys would all the more easily die at the hands of the Communists.

Isn't internationalism a wonderful idea? And perhaps, if we're lucky, Russia will join our coming occupation force in Afghanistan as our "ally," as it did in the NATO "peacekeeping" fiascos in Bosnia and Kosovo, to serve as a symbolic reminder to the bossed and butchered of the "good old days" under the hammer and sickle and/or of "better" days yet to come, this time with the consent of the United States. Isn't it ironic? I'm sure the locals won't miss the irony.

No doubt some of our readers will think we're being cynical – when we are, in fact, realists. Michael Savage pointed out in his column yesterday that if we are to stand up like men and rout our evil enemy, then Bush had better dump his advisers. That is precisely our point. Bush won't. For these advisers, every one of them, are of the same rank and file of the same new world order mindset that has quietly "guided" this nation's foreign policy in the direction of a one world socialist regime, regardless of changes in administration, for some 80 years.

They are the ones who have financed our enemies and called for the disarmament of ourselves and our friends, and who will work to insure that our current response in some way, shape or form compromises our sovereignty and our natural rights, just you wait and see.

And, oh yes, our enemies will survive their response, for alliances need an enemy. Just ask Saddam.

If you really want to strike back at these terrorists, insure that your congressmen, your senators and your president know that you want to keep the U.N. and its bastard child NATO out of the formula. That you want President Bush to consult with Congress, not the Council on Foreign Relations. That you want America to fight America's wars. And that you expect America not to control, not to watch over, but to annihilate her enemies.

We are the richest, most powerful, most technologically advanced nation in the world – we don't need NATO to win, we don't need Russia to win, and we certainly don't need to create ever more enemies via our occupation of the Middle East. We didn't like it when the British did it to us! America must strike swiftly and powerfully, but she must strike alone.

Column afterthought.

To combat the after-effects of Tuesday's terrorism, Mr. Bush, no doubt following the directions of his "advisers," will infuse 50 billion big ones into the IMF – an incredulous move.

Writing in Socialist International Publications in circa 1962-63, Hilary Marquand reveals: "[The IMF is] in essence a socialist conception." (2)

Fact of the matter is the IMF has been subsidizing the global socialist revolution for a long time. Cato Institute researcher Doug Bandow noted in 1994:

Bangladash, Barbados, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Pakistan, Uganda, Zaire, and Zambia all started borrowing in the 1970s and have yet to stop two decades later. (3)

Beware the opportunist solutions to the war against terrorism. Why would we send more U.S. dollars to the very nations that hate America and finance terrorism?

1. For documentation on the true agenda of NATO from its inception, especially regarding its connection to the U.N., read Steve Farrell's popular series "NATO: Beyond Collective Defense" by accessing his pre-NewsMax days archives at www.OpinioNet.com. Please read, also, Steve Farrell's

2. Marquand, Hilary. The Theory and Practice of Planning, Economic Development and Social Change. London: Socialist International Publications, undated, circa 1962-63, p. 28.

3. Bandow, Doug. The IMF: A Record of Addition and Failure, in Doug Bandow and Ian Vasquez (eds.), Perpetrating Poverty: The World Bank, the IMF, and the Developing World. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1994, p. 19.

4. Jasper, William F. The United Nations Exposed. Appleton, Wisc.: The John Birch Society, 2001, p. 223. Thank you, Mr. Jasper for much of the research found in today's Wary Eye!

5. Hazlit, Harry. From Bretton Woods to World Inflation. Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984, pp. 26-27.

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Pre-2008
And so what is the response of the richest, most-powerful nation on earth? We are told by our media and our politicians that for us, life will never be the same. We are told by our president and our military that we are in it for the long haul - for years, perhaps decades,...
Standing,Armies,,No!,Hit,'Em,Hard,,Yes!
1270
2001-00-17
Monday, 17 September 2001 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved