Secretary Rice on Foreign Policy in the Last Eight Years

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
June 9, 2008
Secretary Rice

Secretary Rice reccently wrote a comprehensive article on U.S. foreign policy in the July/August issue ofForeign Affairsmagazine.“My admonition in 2000 that we should seek to get right the 'relationships with the big powers' -- Russia, China, and emerging powers such as India and Brazil -- has consistently guided us. As before, our alliances in the Americas, Europe, and Asia remain the pillars of the international order, and we are now transforming them to meet the challenges of a new era.

What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within states and the distribution of power among them. As globalization strengthens some states, it exposes and exacerbates the failings of many others -- those too weak or poorly governed to address challenges within their borders and prevent them from spilling out and destabilizing the international order. In this strategic environment, it is vital to our national security that states be willing and able to meet the full range of their sovereign responsibilities, both beyond their borders and within them. This new reality has led us to some significant changes in our policy.”

Comments

Comments

Zharkov
|
United States
June 17, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

This blog could become far more interesting if the participants attacked the message rather than the messenger.

Shall we criticize our foreign policy, or shall we criticize the few people who criticize our foreign policy in order to silence them?

Do we discuss foreign policy issues, Eric, or do we discuss the lack of international journalism on Eric's part? If the latter, this blog will quickly become boring. Should it make a difference to a valid argument if we know that Eric never posted a single idea on a Russian blog or can we just move on to discuss his ideas?

Most of our foreign policy, if not all of it, is influenced or devised by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and they should be open to public criticism, particularly here at DoS where they advertise, yet some blog participants that do not like such criticism. It seems being too American is now "anti-American".

Yes, we could all agree that our government and its foreign policy are infallible, but we can see it is otherwise, and some of us want to say so. If this blog is not the place for airing public perceptions and criticism, then what good is it?

Do we need a blog "protest zone" established to keep criticism away from our government officials? Shall we build more bunkers to protect government employees from the voters?

daniel
|
Virginia, USA
June 20, 2008

Daniel in Virginia writes:

What is this?

Yet another attempt to gloss over the absolute disastrous policies of this administration?

Yes, our policies have changed-we rely on phony evidence to invade another country and put our troops in harm's way for what? And in the meantime, we ignore Afghanistan, where the real threat remains.

Pathetic.

History will not judge you kindly Madame secretary.

Robert
|
Kenya
June 17, 2008

Robert in Kenya writes:

Interesting observations. It is worth noting that power does tend to obscure vision. And sometimes potentially powerful states are not listened to because their full potential has not been unleashed given a myriad of internal and external factors. Power seems to draw power to power. Does foreign policy have the patience to listen to power on its back? To listen to the potential of power rather than its excercise? Some of the nation's with greatest potential may seem to be handicapped by poverty and incessant squabbling. The standards of power are set by the powerful as we know them today, but much like we talk of alternative sources of energy today, we need to give power a new dimension, an alternative and serious dimension that reflects less on material and more on values that have led to nations developing national characters that can stand up to be counted as having universally acceptable values and strengths. Pride in humane values free from double standards should be part-reflection of this alternative character of power that should transcend the internal factors in today's powerful states and gain a foothold into emerging ones. Small states too need something to hold onto to give them power. They may not want nuclear arms, but they want model communties, clean environments and convenience of social services.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 17, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Reality check of the day:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 17, 2008

Joint Statement of the President of the Russian Federation and the President of the United States of America for the 4th Meeting of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism

White House News

We are pleased to be working closely together with our Global Initiative Partners to combat nuclear terrorism. That so many nations have joined the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism demonstrates a true commitment to defeat this threat to our peace and security.

The Russian Federation and the United States launched the Global Initiative on July 15, 2006 and we can now call more than 70 nations Global Initiative partners. We will continue to stand upon the principles at the heart of this Initiative, attract others to our ranks and realize our goal of making this a truly global effort. Gathering as partners in Madrid is an important reminder to one another of the commitments we have to each of our citizens to see clearly the concrete steps we can take together to prevent nuclear terrorism and ensure our peace and security.

# # #

Zharkov
|
United States
June 17, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Each public referendum held regarding joining the EU has resulted in overwhelming rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, the latest being Ireland, yet the US says nothing to stop the EU leaders from ramming their treaty down the throats of an unwilling european public. America allows the european oligarchy to covertly ignore the treaty vote while our State Department pontificates about freedom. Hypocrisy appears to be our primary foreign policy if we are "for" democracy but "against" the Irish vote.

Let's talk about Iran and nuclear terrorism. Iran has just withdrawn about $75 billion from Europe to prevent the assets from being blocked under threatened new sanctions over Tehran's disputed nuclear ambitions, an Iranian weekly said. "Part of Iran's assets in European banks have been converted to gold and shares and another part has been transferred to Asian banks," Mohsen Talaie, deputy foreign minister in charge of economic affairs, was quoted as saying.

Now this is the wrong way to enforce sanctions. Economic sanctions are economic warfare, and in war, one does not announce the next attack in advance. If prior demands fail, you block the accounts without warning. If we are going to announce sanctions, and then advertise in advance what will occur, the sanctions will be worthless because the enemy will dynamically adjust its economic behavior to neutralize the inconvenience. In conducting economic war, the first principle is that it is a war, and we use economics and finance as weapons instead of bullets but it requires some of the same tactical skills as a shooting war. As long as Iran finds a bank with an open door, it will conduct business as usual. Iran is not self-isolating like North Korea. If the enemy is surrounded except for a gap, it will exit through the gap without losses. To properly embargo Iran, it will take unanimous cooperation of all banks in every country, including Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Venezuela, and across the globe. If you cannot do that, then your sanctions remain mostly symbolic. Iran will continue to do what it does, and banking sanctions will remain ineffective.

The Iranians haven't been shy about making clear what's at stake. If the U.S. or Israel so much as drops a bomb on one of its reactors or its military training camps, Iran will shut down Gulf oil exports by launching a barrage of Chinese Silkworm missiles on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and Arab oil facilities. In the worst case scenario, seventeen million barrels of oil would come off world markets.

One oil speculator said that oil would hit $200 a barrel within minutes. But Iran's official news agency, Fars, puts it at $300 a barrel. If Iran is right, what does that mean?

"Four-dollar-a-gallon of gasoline only reflects $100 oil because the refiners' margins are squeezed," he said. "At $300, you have $12 a gallon of gasoline and riots in Newark, Los Angeles, Harlem, Oakland, Cleveland, Detroit, Dallas."

In either case, whether at $200 or $300, Mr. Bush does not want to be the President who leaves the White House on a mule-drawn cart. But Iran's blackmail is not just about oil. The Iranians truly believe they have us hostage in Iraq ? our supply lines, the acquiescence of the Shi'a in the occupation. It would all change in an instant, though, especially if we were to borrow Iraq to attack Iran.

What foreign policy can we have to end an Iranian nuclear weapons program if we cannot be certain it even exists?

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 19, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Zharkov, I suggest you simply digest the words I wrote and not try to do too much reading between the lines.

I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, and a perfect opportunity to enlighten all of us as to your motivations on this forum. So please don't think I'm trying to silence you in any way. I'm just returning the favor since you gave me a perfect opportunity to shread your message.

It is not me that calls your credibility into question, you've done quite a thourough job of it all by yourself.

I would say that this blog's potential is far greater than a simple whiner's paradise for those in opposition to US foreign policy.

The alternative is for folks like Robert in Kenya to make so much sense in what he says that it can't possibly be ignored by the "powers that be". As just one example.

If anything Zharkov, I'm encoraging you to think logicly and if there's some percieved criticism in that, then you know why that is better than I.

It would make perfect sense to me if you had finally after 8000 some odd posts on Pravda, decided it was a total waste of your time, so you decided to grace us with your presence here. No problemo. I'm having a good time with it....(chuckle).

It is after all a debate no?

I may not agree with your perceptions of reality, but I sure do find them interesting, if not amusing.

But in case you think I have any attachment to becoming a "foreign journalist", I don't need to waste my time with Pravda to get an idea to folks in the Kremlin. Seems a lot of folks have got the concept (see press release posted-Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism) I put to Bill Clinton in 91 in these words on the flyleaf of my grandmother's book about Los Alamos, that I gave to him the day he was first elected President:

"This is a slice of times past, to give perspective on the present, so that in the future we can eliminate the threat of nuclear war. The greatest threat we face today is that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons."

It's taken this administration it's entire two terms in office to help folks internationally wrap thier political reality around the stark reality of WMD we've all helped to create as nations.

So what's my motivation for being here? Well it's pretty transparent when you consider the reason my grandmother wrote a book about the Manhattan Project was because my Granddad was one of the division heads of the project that designed and produced the first atomic bomb in history.

If one were to say "The fellow's got issues" that would be correct in my case where it concerns the dysfunctionality of nations.

But I do not find it productive, or convincing argument to simply opine with a whine, because anyone can do that and it changes nothing.

But if folks have listened to me , it is only because they know I'm for real and do not mislead, and I think you've got to work on that one if you're going to be doing anything but be wasting your time trying to expound on your vision of America here on this blog.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 18, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

As I said Zharkov, you ask some good questions.

At first glance I can fully appreciate how you've come to the assessment regarding the effectiveness of sanctions on Iran. Good and worthy points I'm sure folks at DoS and elsewhere considered before any decision was made.

You say Iran is not self isolating...well in that you must separate the people from the government. The people are not, but the government is....

So how would you go about having allies and friends around the world divest from Iran in a more effective manner than by causing Iran to pull all its money out of their banks?

In fact, Iran has saved folks the trouble of having to go look for it to have it frozen. Now it can be tracked, and like in any good investigation "follow the money" is a sound strategy to discovery.

We don't want to give them the war they want nor expect....on their terms. We give them the war they are neither prepared for nor able to fight...on our terms.

As for any closing of the Persian Gulf to shipping, Iran has tried in the past and the only problem with the premis is the US Navy, who will simply open it up again to shipping like a can opener in about 24-48 hours. After which, no one will be concerned with any Iranian offensive capability ever again. Take that to the bank.

In fact Zharkov, if we were to go to the last option and take a more kinetic approach to the problem, I think it's a safe bet contingincy planning on this has already been done and I don't think you'll see the results you've outlined occur as you described them.

If the Iranians were smart, you'd think they'd see the "gap" and take the fair offer that's currently on the table. But then we arn't dealing with reasonable minds in the first place, and to me this is the fundemental mistake of assumption the EU3 made in trying to negotiate with a state sponsor of terror in the first place.

I'm all for giving diplomacy a chance, but not at the expense of allowing the development of a nuclear weapons program disguising itself as being "peaceful" in nature.

The regime has no interest in peace, that's why it rejected the offer made. And I wouldn't hang your hat on some politicaly skewed NIE, Zharkov. They have an active re-activated program today, and it has been reactivated since mid 2004...not 2005 as some recent articles suggest.

It took America just about 27 months, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch, with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced.

Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with, and in all probability now has in its possesion, a handful of nuclear devices smuggled in after being bought on the black market.

Which is I believe why they are behaving like idiots filled with the overconfidence given them by the popular political mythology that atomic weapons buys a nation's security.

Because they think having them can cause us to blink perhaps.... In any case it's a very....bad....mistake.

And you asked "how can this be solved without killing a lot of people?" in similar context in a post you put on Pravda ( at least that's as I remember it ).

Well, I think you give the US President all the rope he needs to give the Iranians the ability to hang themselves with politically, for starters. And then you give him credit for having brought a "common aproach" attitude forward that discredited the notion that it was the US' fault for the impass, when now quite obviously (and admittedly)was a tactic to waste time, divide the will of the international community, and keep the nuclear program alive.

So while the problem is now quite acute, and folks have a chance to reflect on the efforts made to date to solve it, it would indeed be hard to call the effort concrete or successful in meeting the primary goal as yet. When Nantez and other sites are filled in with concrete, then we've got a working "concrete solution", and not before.

But then I also believe that the framework among nations created to handle this crisis has yet to be put to its ultimate test.

I guess we'll see what happens when push comes to shove, but it really is for the Iranians to answer your question in full. Both by the government and the people.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 18, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

There's only one correct response to the following, and that is that America considers folks in Europe to be responsible adults, not ethical infants. And thus fully capable of resolving their own direction as a community of democratic nations.

Zharkov wrote, "America allows the european oligarchy to covertly ignore the treaty vote while our State Department pontificates about freedom. Hypocrisy appears to be our primary foreign policy if we are "for" democracy but "against" the Irish vote.

Here's a little perspective on the Irish for you Zharkov:

Shortly after 9/11, when all air travel was cancelled, my mom among others was temporarily stranded in Ireland, and the Irish opened the whole town up to them like a community wide "Bed and Breakfast", inviting one and all into their homes.

One local woman remarked to my mother that it felt to her that Ireland itself had been attacked. She went on to explain that there were "so many Irish in America that it was as if we were the 51st state of the United States".

I'm not suggesting this explains their vote....(chuckle).

Benjamin
|
Ohio, USA
June 19, 2008

Benjamin in Ohio writes:

We need to promote the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect on the way to a democratic world federation. There are global issues like the end to the war system; climate change; fair global trade; basic political, civic, economic, and solidarity rights; which can only be addressed by a global democratic authority with the power and the resources to do the job.

Name-calling and over-simplifications get us nowhere. Research, openness to new structures will get us to the beginning of civilization.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 20, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Well then Ben, I guess the "Quartet" and supporting cast will simply have to compose an "Ode to the common man".

And a "Requime for Mother Earth"

The trick is to get all the players to the concert on time.

Ariving at the same mindset is not a simplistic task, one must become the music one plays.

The previously self billed wannabes having been cancelled due to lack of global interest are in process of packing up their "Death to America" dirge and walking it over oblivion's cliff strait back to the fourteenth century.

How far back to the begining of civilization are we talking about here? From an anthropological perspective, we have dinosaurs running amok as it is.

And Sociologicly? We've been inventing newer and better ways of exterminating ourselves for 200,000 + years. Technology has always outstripped mankind's ability to dicipline ourselves to use it in an ethical manner.

I agree with you that there is the opportunity to change this dynamic in this modern age to something more creative and less destructive.

But humanity has thousands of years of bad habits to undo first.

Zharkov
|
United States
June 20, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Benjamin in Ohio, I disagree, and I think one good move the Bush Administration has done is to keep America out of ICJ jurisdiction, to the extent it can. You have no idea of how your free speech rights would disappear under the rule of European governments. In France, the government prosecuted Brigette Bardot merely for writing about the effects of Islamic immigration on French culture; in Canada, Macleans Magazine was prosecuted by the Canadian government for publishing a magazine article about some trivial little thing; in Germany, you dare not write articles about the Holocaust that challenge the official view of it. Even today, in America, some Congressional members want to apply their crackpot theories about "hate speech" to criminalize people who say or write the wrong things. Governments everywhere want to limit what you can say and do, particularly if it involves public officials, and you can see that daily in the news media.

Every nation has a court system of some kind. There is no need for an international court as long as we have treaties to determine the choice of law to apply in certain cases, and no nation has yet complained about a shortage of lawyers.

The real problem with global government is that it would end the ancient right of exile. In most of man's history, we have had the right to leave a country which becomes oppressive, malicious, or simply boring, and go to a new country to start a new and hopefully better life. In a global society with one government for all nations, there would be no escape from your past life. You could never start over again. The government would track your every address change because you would belong to them. Today, they want your biometric data. Tomorrow, they will use it for purposes you cannot even imagine right now.

It has always been true that every law is extended to its maximum reach and then beyond, to ridiculous lengths, to accomplish some government objective regardless of whether that objective is good or bad. Today we may have a saint in charge of the EU (just kidding!), but tomorrow they may place another Hitler in power. With global government, can you even imagine the damage another Hitler might do?

Do we trust the elites who govern us not to make another mistake in choosing a leader for the world? I do not, and I hope our Declaration of Independence continues to remind us of what happened the last time we were governed by an unelected leader of a world empire.

An international court is only the beginning of a monolithic global government. To attain such a government requires consolidation of regions into organizations like the EU, the African Union, the North American Union, the South American Union, the Asia Union, to create subordinate bureaucracies under one global leader elected by regional leaders, not the citizens, but they will have tremendous, direct power over citizen's lives. This type of government must be stopped wherever it develops, or our liberties will be lost for a long, long time.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 20, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

(chuckle) Zharkov I gotta say, that was a fine essay from the Borg School of Globalization... i.e. "...resistance is futile, you will be assimilated."

The basic problem with the "One World Gov." concept is that it really goes against human nature to give up individual or in this case national identity.

I see what we have today becoming more as a grouping of nations bound by common purpose principally to deal with common problems, and the good stewardship of the rights of man and the envioronment as a matter of humanity's survival into the 22nd century and beyond.

It may take awhile for this dysfunctional mess to get sorted out properly, so enjoy the ride.

Teresa
|
Germany
June 26, 2008

Teresa in Germany writes:

I agree with Mrs. Condolezza Rice.

I have read the article at the Foreign Affairs Online.

Very well balanced. Realistic.

I see the efforts of the Bush Administration in trying to cope in the best way as possible with so many conflicts, some unexpectet, with so much transparancy, equilibrium, and the desire to construct a better world after this difficult and complex post-cold war period.

And in having, at the same time, before so much oppositions all over the world, what became < fashionable >, strengh, structure, capacity of ruling all the affairs that have come to it.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 8, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Teresa in Germany,

Welcome to the blog, and I appreciate the perspective you offered.

Would it be any wonder to folks in Europe if American foreign policy was based upon the trust it places in the common sense of free people?

Your country is living proof.

---

"Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."

John F. Kennedy, 1963

Zharkov
|
United States
July 8, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ Eric, if global government fails to occur, it will not have failed from a lack of cooperation from our State Department, so enjoy your captivity, if it happens.

Recent trends suggest that people around the world are slowly awakening to the trend, so the anticipated merger of Europe's governments may never happen and the EU may eventually disintegrate as a political entity and revert to the trade and travel arrangement it should have been.

There is nothing to be gained from global government that cannot be gained by proper treaties and alliances, so the chance exists that the average citizen may retain some liberty after all, once the globalists give up on their goal, remains very high. The globalist movement is dying and that is a very good thing.

As the recent writings of Mr. Gorbachev suggest, American military expansion in Central Europe is making other nations very nervous, mainly Russia, and many Russians believe the Bush Administration is unpredictable and therefore untrustworthy. I think we need to back off in sucking CIS nations into NATO, missile shields, etc., to give Russia time to get used to becoming subservient to the empire.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 9, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Zharkov, how many times do I have to repeat myself till you finally get that people will determine what works for them, and discard the rest.

Back in the 60's, folks (adults to me back then) talked of the world "getting smaller" because of advances in air travel.

Globalization has been taking place ever since at an exponential rate.

Globalization is a technological fact in the age of the internet.

This doesn't mean that a global dictatorship is on a parrallel rise....Really Zharkov, I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be making you hallucinate.

Re-read my last post and then compare that to what is the official position of the G8.

G8 Declaration on the World Economy:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-2.html

G8 Declaration on Environment and Climate Change:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-3.html

G8 Declaration on Development and Africa:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-5.html

G8 Leaders Statement on Global Food Security:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-6.html

G8 Leaders Statement on Counter-Terrorism:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-8.html

G8 Leaders Statement on Zimbabwe:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-9.html

G8 Declaration on International Institutions:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-11.html

G8 Declaration on Political Issues:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-10.html

----

Zharkov, you really don't know me very well, nor would you grasp the kind of education I've had, but if it offers a clue, I was taking American history in High school and coming home at night and watching American history being made during the Watergate hearings...one might say I was a highly dissilusioned young man once. I can somewhat sympathize with your plight, but only to a limited extent.

Arn't you just a wee bit curious why an "uber liberal" like myself has reason to be optimistic today?...Lol!

I doubt if you are prepared for the answer, but do your homework anyway, you have your reading assignment posted.

I'll expect at least a 5000 character outline by morning.

Zharkov
|
United States
July 9, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico, there is a huge difference between global trade and global government. If you think I am against both, you have misunderstood my posts.

Global government, the centralization of power over entire regions of the planet through voluntary relinquishment of sovereignty can lead to unimaginable evil. This was the dream of Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, and the latest bunch we have leading both political parties in America.

Global trade, however, can be accomplished with a network of treaties and economic agreements and is probably good for everyone as long as monopoly power, such as sovereign funds set up by wealthy nations, do not overwhelm the system.

The kind of America that meddles into every other nation's affairs is not the same America that our constitution describes and indeed, is not America at all.

Regarding your lack of suspicion of a global dictatorship arising, I have to assume you have not read as widely as you should if the references exclusively to G-8 resolutions is your point of reference.

I suppose you have not read the news about satellite redeployment for surveillance in the US, or this morning that the federal government is considering placing tazer-like bracelets on airline passengers to monitor their movements; the creation of federal biometric data bases; the installation of tracking chips in new automobiles?

Did you know that our police received military equipment during the Clinton Administration and are now receiving military training during the Bush Administration; that entire civilian police forces are being militarized with military-style missions and training, internal checkpoints, military intelligence surveillance of American citizens? Do you not wonder why more and more of our civilian police have traded their police insignia for military uniforms, military weapons, and military tactics?

Do you know that the president's plan for emergency succession was never approved by Congress and never will be?

I read everything - domestic and foreign intelligence reports, new legislation, changes in state laws, new product advances, new federal contracts - everything you might imagine and more. Frankly, there are too many suspicious developments, much of which you are unaware, to describe in even 5,000 characters, but if you are curious, you can Google for details if you are interested.

Regardless, it is not my intention to hog the blog with disagreeable posts but merely to add another point of view that seems fully justified.

When you say people will determine what works for them, I hope you know that Congress has a 9% approval rating now, so clearly, 91% of Americans say what we are doing now is not working.

Americans do not want to be, and cannot afford to be, the global police force of last resort, or the guardians of the empire, or the builders of democracies. It is un-American. It is not something we celebrate on July 4th.

The whole point of emigrants leaving the old country for America was to get away from the european class structure, the european form of government, and to have real liberty. There are too many in our government who have forgotten why they are here, and it is my pleasure to remind them.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 9, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

I see you've only done a partial reading of your assignment, Zharkov.

What exactly do you think I was saying here?

---

"The basic problem with the "One World Gov." concept is that it really goes against human nature to give up individual or in this case national identity.

I see what we have today becoming more as a grouping of nations bound by common purpose principally to deal with common problems, and the good stewardship of the rights of man and the envioronment as a matter of humanity's survival into the 22nd century and beyond.

It may take awhile for this dysfunctional mess to get sorted out properly, so enjoy the ride."

---

You should really dive into these G8 links and and study them, because what I said above is become manifest.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into your paranoid delusional fantasies. There are simply too many natural checks and balances in international affairs that would prevent your global dictat of conspiracy from raising its ugly head in any practical or sustained manner.

Not going to happen my friend...so relax...your chains are of your own making. You can free your mind so long as you believe you can.

Thus, I am no captive to your imagination.

Pages

.

Latest Stories

Pages