The UN, a basis for a NWO or "worthless organization and should be abolished."

**Officer of Engineers** · 21 Apr 11,, 01:56

Originally Posted by marx

Two.

Far more than that. Far more. The Invasion of Quebec during the American War of Independence, the War of 1812 (you invaded the Canadas, you were repulsed from the Canadas, the Treaty of Ghent just stopped a superior British counter-invasion, New Orleans was by no means the end of British military power in the Americas wheras the Americans were spent), the American Civil War (there was an American loser in that one no matter how you count it), the Fenian Invasions of Canada, Vietnam War, Lebanon, and Somalia. There are probably some other actions in South America that the Marines came out 2nd best.

Now, you may argue technically whether the Americans lost or just given up ... and in alot of my arguments, this may very well be true, but the point is if the Americans have given up the small wars in her own backyard, then what are the chances of her determination in someone else's backyard?

This is in context to your direct question if the US chooses to impose a New World Order. The direct answer is the US would not even if she could ... because it ain't worth it.

**Doktor** · 21 Apr 11,, 01:57

If I understood him correct he is advocating single government. When all the peaceful solutions ran out, he took the super power to help him. Now if you make one world, you leave, you fail.

**marx** · 21 Apr 11,, 04:35

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Far more than that. Far more. The Invasion of Quebec during the American War of Independence, the War of 1812 (you invaded the Canadas, you were repulsed from the Canadas, the Treaty of Ghent just stopped a superior British counter-invasion, New Orleans was by no means the end of British military power in the Americas wheras the Americans were spent), the American Civil War (there was an American loser in that one no matter how you count it), the Fenian Invasions of Canada, Vietnam War, Lebanon, and Somalia. There are probably some other actions in South America that the Marines came out 2nd best.

Now, you may argue technically whether the Americans lost or just given up ... and in alot of my arguments, this may very well be true, but the point is if the Americans have given up the small wars in her own backyard, then what are the chances of her determination in someone else's backyard?

This is in context to your direct question if the US chooses to impose a New World Order. The direct answer is the US would not even if she could ... because it ain't worth it.

Somalia and Lebanon were not declared as wars, therefor it can not count as a war that was lost, neither were the invasions of Quebec or any conflict we fought trying to gain Canadian land.
Even though its probably not worth it, im an just providing a scenario.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Don't do that please if someone has quoted you and you are changing the substance of your statement.
Instead make corrections in a further post "what I meant to say" or "on further reflection" otherwise it gets hopelessly confusing for other members.

Sorry about that, I tried to fix it before anyone quoted it, it will not happen again.

**Officer of Engineers** · 21 Apr 11,, 04:39

Originally Posted by marx

Somalia and Lebanon were not declared as wars, therefor it can not count as a war that was lost, neither were the invasions of Quebec or any conflict we fought trying to gain Canadian land.
Even though its probably not worth it, im an just providing a scenario.

You're stretching. Men died on the field trying to take and defend strategic cities. Whatever point you're trying to make does not change the fact that the US did not and would not fight to the end in her own backyard. How would they do in anther's backyard.

**marx** · 21 Apr 11,, 06:40

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're stretching. Men died on the field trying to take and defend strategic cities. Whatever point you're trying to make does not change the fact that the US did not and would not fight to the end in her own backyard. How would they do in anther's backyard.

Somalia and Lebanon were not in the U.S. backyard. And it seems we have done pretty well in others backyards, WW1 and WW2, the gulf war, all were successful wars that were not fought in our back yard. The civil war and the Spanish American wars both showed that the U.S. can indeed fight in its own back yard, however i do not see how wars fought over a 100 years ago will effect how the united states will fight in the future. And I am assuming that in my scenario the u.s. would not be alone.

**Officer of Engineers** · 21 Apr 11,, 13:06

Originally Posted by marx

Somalia and Lebanon were not in the U.S. backyard.

And Cuba, Mexico, and Canada are and yet, you gave up the fights of Manifest Destiny.

Originally Posted by marx

And it seems we have done pretty well in others backyards, WW1 and WW2,

Pacts with one devil against another devil only to have our devil stand up once we won.

Originally Posted by marx

the gulf war, all were successful wars that were not fought in our back yard.

I would not call the Kuwait War all that successful if you had to fight another 2 wars after that.

Originally Posted by marx

The civil war and the Spanish American wars both showed that the U.S. can indeed fight in its own back yard,

The civil war is not in your backyard. It was in your house.

Originally Posted by marx

however i do not see how wars fought over a 100 years ago will effect how the united states will fight in the future.

Goes to show that political will is not there for the unimportant fights near home, it definitely will not be there for the unimportant fights away from home. Libya comes to mind.

Originally Posted by marx

And I am assuming that in my scenario the u.s. would not be alone.

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea will fight. They may not win but they will fight. The question is would the US fight for this NWO at the price of expensive oil and 12 inch TVs that costs a $10,000.

**Doktor** · 21 Apr 11,, 13:54

Marx, I seriously don't see the need why push this idea of yours so hard.

At first you represented it as a noble idea, with no wars, better economy...

Look where are you now. Next thing you will argue it will be a good thing to suffer 100 years from that wars just to get better later.

**bigross86** · 21 Apr 11,, 14:49

Doc, every idea needs to evolve until it reaches its natural conclusion. Most of us here know that a NWO is not gonna work, and I've got the feeling that Marx knows it too, but he's gonna have to figure it out for himself. Give him time, he seems like a smart kid...

**Mihais** · 21 Apr 11,, 15:22

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Pacts with one devil against another devil only to have our devil stand up once we won.

Gotta quote this one.

**Chogy** · 21 Apr 11,, 15:27

The ebb and flow of this thread is a bit baffling.

Is the premise now that the U.S. is going to say to the world "You will join our NWO come hell or high water, meaning we will jam it down your throats by military force?"

Ignoring for the moment any benefits such an order might proffer to the participants; even pretending for a moment that the will to do such a thing existed in the U.S. and the public, government, and military were all on board, it physically is impossible to execute.

Even the threat of nuclear annihilation isn't going to bring everybody to the table. And Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated how difficult (if not impossible) it is to simultaneously conquer a country, spare civilians, and rebuild.

The normal timeline is more like
- Obliteration
- Occupation
- Reconstruction

In that order. And there isn't 1% of the assets available to execute even a portion of this world-wide.

**marx** · 22 Apr 11,, 05:37

Originally Posted by Doktor

Marx, I seriously don't see the need why push this idea of yours so hard.

At first you represented it as a noble idea, with no wars, better economy...

Look where are you now. Next thing you will argue it will be a good thing to suffer 100 years from that wars just to get better later.

I would still rather it come peacefully, however all of the discussion seems to lead to one thing, the use of violence to achieve my goal. The OOE said it him self, who ever is the toughest gets their own way, hell even teddy Roosevelt said it, "big stick", use violence and threats to achieve our goal. Its not like I want to use violence to accomplish world unity, however based on every thing I have read so far, death and destruction is the only way to achieve my goal.
thanks

**Officer of Engineers** · 22 Apr 11,, 05:41

Originally Posted by marx

I would still rather it come peacefully, however all of the discussion seems to lead to one thing, the use of violence to achieve my goal. The OOE said it him self, who ever is the toughest gets their own way, hell even teddy Roosevelt said it, "big stick", use violence and threats to achieve our goal. Its not like I want to use violence to accomplish world unity, however based on every thing I have read so far, death and destruction is the only way to achieve my goal.
thanks

Then, let me ask you this. Why do you want to unite the war through war instead of living seperately peacefully?

**marx** · 22 Apr 11,, 05:52

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Then, let me ask you this. Why do you want to unite the war through war instead of living seperately peacefully?

Because in truth when you look around do you see peace? The united states and russia have to create programs to reduce the number of nuclear weapons each one has because they do not trust each other to not use them. I do not call that peace.
Look at places like the Congo and Rwanda where people are killed every day in drug wars, women are raped and then left to care for the children that result. I do not consider that peace.
The united states and mexico border, hundreds of illegal immigrants are coming in to the country where they then become the victims of hate crimes just because in their country they could not feed their families. I do not consider that peace.

And I think you read my post wrong, I do NOT want to unite the world through war.

**Officer of Engineers** · 22 Apr 11,, 06:00

Originally Posted by marx

Because in truth when you look around do you see peace? The united states and russia have to create programs to reduce the number of nuclear weapons each one has because they do not trust each other to not use them. I do not call that peace.

It is peace. We have not used those weapons.

Originally Posted by marx

Look at places like the Congo and Rwanda where people are killed every day in drug wars, women are raped and then left to care for the children that result. I do not consider that peace.

It is peace to us. They're too damned scare to do it to us.

Originally Posted by marx

The united states and mexico border, hundreds of illegal immigrants are coming in to the country where they then become the victims of hate crimes just because in their country they could not feed their families. I do not consider that peace.

Hold on one freaking second. While there is a problem with the American-Mexican border, the majority of Mexicans wants to stay in Mexico. And whether you like it or not, there is peace between Mexico and the United States. And Mexicans are feeding Mexicans. Hell, we're buying food from Mexico. You need to a lot more before jumping on sterotypes. THERE IS NO FAMINE IN MEXICO.

Originally Posted by marx

And I think you read my post wrong, I do NOT want to unite the world through war.

There is no other way to do it. I WILL NOT ALLOW ANYONE ELSE BUT OTTAWA to have a say in my life.

**marx** · 22 Apr 11,, 06:20

It is peace to us. They're too damned scare to do it to us.

It may be peace to us, however it is not a global peace. In order to live separately and peacefully like you said, then wouldn't all places in the world have to be peaceful? Uniting the world to create peace in places that do not have it, is a hell of alot better than just staying happy here in our own countries that do have peace. What happens when the chaos in the Congo and Rwanda spreads into Europe? What happens when we can no longer fight to defend our selves from the chaos because it has spread across most of the world before we could do anything about it. Or are you just suggesting that we sit back and watch the chaos while it is not affecting our selves or our friends? Not to be disrespectful, but thats abit selfish.