From: pomi 
Subject: Bosnia
Message-ID: 
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:36:32 -0400 (EDT)

Needless to say, I pay attention to what is being said about Bosnia.
And now I'm looking to find the sense about sending 20,000+ US ground
troops to "enforce a peace."

I've seen Congressional hearings in which Shali, Perry, and
Christopher were witnesses before the apparently thoughtful Senate
Foreign Relations Cmte. I've seen think-tankers and commentators and
pundits on television.

I've read editorials and op-ed pieces in the NY Times and WS Journal
and heard the White House spokesman brief me on troops in Bosnia. I've
heard the BBC and Radio France International...and I've read the news
on internet.

So, I'd say I've been exposed to most of the pros and cons of sending
troops to Bosnia that are being raised by both the "intellectual"
opinion elite and the people in Congress who might be able to
translate their views into concrete actions affecting the sending of
troops to Bosnia.

Among the cons I've heard: that the Europeans in NATO are militarily
capable of doing the job themselves; that the US has no vital security
interest in Bosnia; that we'll get into a quagmire like Vietnam; that
a military force should not be necessary when a real peace has been
agreed to by the parties; that there's no clear military objective;
that it's too expensive at $1.2 billion; that US troops will be
targets; that the rules of engagement will be weak and lead to
deaths...

Among the pros: that the credibility of both the US and NATO are at
stake; that the US must lead; that the parties will not agree to peace
unless the US sends in the troops; that the Balkans were the location
for the incident that caused WWI; that we cannot be isolationists;
that the war will spread; that the future security of Europe is at
stake; that the only remaining superpower has responsibilities like
troops in Bosnia; that the whole world is watching..

I'd say that the above pretty well covers EVERY argument that has been
put forth by Congresspeople and by the media which decides which
arguments it will publicize and thus allow into the debate.  Arguments
made by those not in positions to receive publicity are, unfortunately
and for all intents and purposes, nonexistent and are disallowed to be
cited as reasons.

Now what is missing from this picture? Well, why do I and many on this
list and on the internet oppose sending 20,000 US ground troops to
Bosnia ?

Because this deployment of troops is an obvious step on the road to
the international military, the international political system, and
the international government.

The international government that imposes its wishes for the
international political system using its international military force
is or will become the NEW WORLD ORDER.

Why have I heard NO PERSON make this objection? Two possibilities: no
one opposes the deployment on this grounds or no one has thought of
it.

Could it be that no person has thought that engaging in the world
military in which soldiers from outside the region go in and bear arms
against people in their own country is an undesirable activity that
are the precise activities that would create a de facto world
government?

Is it believable that not one person whose views can be known has ever
had the thought that an international military enforcing the orders of
the international Security Council would be the same kind of activity
under the same structure of world government?

Not likely that no one has thought about these implications. So, if
they've thought of these issues and not raised objections based on
them, then the explanation for silence on this score is that no one
objects to the deployment because of its resemblance to world
government and the related loss of the sovereignty of the United
States.

The conversation in this regard is enlightening to the extreme. It
tells us that there is implicit agreement about the underlying
propriety of a the development of an international system with an
international military. Everyone agrees.  And more important, no one -
- agree or not -- even raises the slightest word that the issue even
exists.

If the NWO, embodied in the this NEW type of international military
action, is a positive thing to the talking heads, why don't they
mention that we should go to Bosnia in pursuit of it?  Why don't they
say we should go to Bosnia so that we can enter a new era of world
government?  Could it be that it has occurred to no one that we should
go to Bosnia because it's the kind of action that would reinforce the
positive peacemaking and problem-solving that could occur with global
political institutions with the ability to enforce the solutions with
a global military force?

Again, not likely.

I'd say that the silence is deafening and the absence conspicuous.

And the meaning is that the subject has been purposedly obscured and
hidden, suppressed by agreement among the blabbermouths who tell us
what to think and why.  In the face of activities that ANYONE can see
bear a resemblance to what a world government would do and that
creates the structure to bring it about -- not only is world
government not cited as a reason for keeping US troops out of Bosnia,
not only is it not offered as a positive outcome of sending US troops
to Bosnia -- but the entire subject simply does not exist for those
brilliant strategists and scholars who know everything about
everything and have thought every thought that could ever be thought
about every subject that has ever been.

They've never thought of the concept of world government and how the
actions in Bosnia could pass of a twin of the same.  Right.

Don't worry, be happy.  Something that has never entered the minds of
the people who run the world cannot be something we should fret about
because, actually, there is no such thing.

---SnetMgr 0.60 [r0001]
 * Origin: snet-l@world.std.com <-> FidoNet (1:330/202)