Politics and Medicine - Mortimer Zuckerman and The New World Order (and the Police State)

Author

Mortimer Zuckerman and The New World Order (and the Police State)

Kathleen

2006-05-06, 6:29 pm

Ohh!!! THAT explains Zuckerman's appearance at the www.aldf.com's
GALA in June of 2001, at th Pierre Hotel in NYC, and then turning
around and getting back into his limo when he saw our protest!!

http://actionlyme.org/LYME_CORRUPTICUT.htm

Zuckerman's fright-mongering: "But our greatest challenge remains
terrorism, and it is distressingly complicated."

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

An election. . .for a sheriff

By Mortimer B. Zuckerman =B7 Editor-in-Chief

12/22/03
Related Links

* Browse through an archive of columns by Mortimer B. Zuckerman.

For the first time since the Vietnam era's presidential campaigns in
1968 and 1972, foreign policy will dominate a presidential election as
it hasn't done through successive convulsions from the collapse of the
Soviet Union to the first Gulf War. The slogan that captured American
politics in 1992 was "It's the economy, stupid." In 1996, fewer than 5
percent voted on the basis of foreign policy.

Next year, however, the war cry is apt to be "It's terrorism, stupid."
How does an open and disputatious democracy (i.e. us) deal with a
ruthless group of radical Islamists with no known address, who are
willing, even eager, to die in what they view as an existential
struggle between the West and Islam? Not since Saladin crushed the
Crusader armies at the Horns of Hattin in 1187 has any Islamic group
felt that it had the power to drive the infidel from the Middle East
and threaten the West.

Every candidate will have to face the reality that terrorists may
become armed with technologies that literally permit them to wage a
world war. Candidates who equivocate on this will surely fall.

The West was united against the Soviet Union and won. The dismaying
fact is that today the West is divided on terrorism. Too many believe
that the American answer is, in itself, a source of instability and
hatred. But what was America to do when it suffered more casualties on
9/11 than at Pearl Harbor? The Bush administration concluded that we
had to go on the offensive, even to the point of pre-emption--to get
them before they get us.

Love-hate. The case for pre-emption is strong. It does not fit the
normal lexicon of democratic polity, but the imminent threat today is
not the imminent threat of yesterday, when armies massed at frontiers,
advertising their hostile intentions. There will be no warning from
those who hide in the dark, intent on inflicting death on thousands,
perhaps hundreds of thousands, irrespective of race, religion, or
creed.

There is a positive side to the doctrine of pre-emption as practiced in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Given that the Arab world is the heartland of
radical Islamism, the Bush administration sees instituting the freedoms
we associate with democracy as essential for a stable society whose
energies may be turned inward, where they belong. If we could undertake
this task with friends and allies, it would be for the best, and we
should certainly try harder. But we must do it, even if it means going
it alone.

Everybody knows that this is the American century. Some love it, and
some, of course, hate it. Why? Because our dominance seems ordained for
decades, given the relative youth of our population compared with those
of Europe and China, not to mention our widening technological gap with
the rest of the world.

Not surprisingly, this has caused other big powers to rethink where
they fit. Russia dissolved its empire and now lives within borders that
reflect no historical precedent. It seeks a new relationship with the
West and with the former satellite states of the Soviet Union. China is
emerging from centuries of decline as a major power. Europe is
redefining whatever political entity will emerge from the European
Union. As Henry Kissinger has pointed out, "Never before has a ***new
world order*** had to be assembled from so many different perceptions
of the world, or on so global a scale."

The world understands that American involvement is unavoidable. Whether
it's saving Mexico from economic collapse, dissuading China from
attacking Taiwan, mediating between India and Pakistan, or resolving
the threat of North Korea's nuclear capability and Iran's incipient
nuclear arsenal, the role of the United States is crucial.

But our greatest challenge remains terrorism, and it is distressingly
complicated. The fanaticism that derives from a twisted apprehension of
Islam is aggravated further by the Middle East's long history of
autocracy and religious intolerance and by the yawning gulf between
rich and poor. ***This, in turn, breeds resentment among the urbanized
poor--from whose ranks the terrorists are increasingly drawn--and among
the educated elite with no political place to go.**** ["Custodial
Democracy- putting black people in cages, and the DCF-Rowlandgate Jails
Enterprise.]

Given that our geography no longer protects us, we must be concerned
with the survival of America as an open and free society as we seek to
protect ourselves while preserving our liberties. This may not be
universally popular; the balance between liberty and order will be
contentious. But at the end of the day the election will be a test of
our resolve, as it was for the citizens in High Noon, when Gary Cooper
insisted on confronting the gunmen while the town cowered--and then,
finally, cheered.

Stuart

2006-05-07, 11:28 am

stuart hyderman stuart hyderman stuart hyderman stuart hyderman

stuart hyderman
stuart hyderman
stuart hyderman
stuart hyderman
stuart hyderman

Kathleen <kmdickson0308@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146955041.138485.312870@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ohh!!! THAT explains Zuckerman's appearance at the www.aldf.com's
GALA in June of 2001, at th Pierre Hotel in NYC, and then turning
around and getting back into his limo when he saw our protest!!

http://actionlyme.org/LYME_CORRUPTICUT.htm

Zuckerman's fright-mongering: "But our greatest challenge remains
terrorism, and it is distressingly complicated."

=========

An election. . .for a sheriff

By Mortimer B. Zuckerman · Editor-in-Chief

12/22/03
Related Links

* Browse through an archive of columns by Mortimer B. Zuckerman.

For the first time since the Vietnam era's presidential campaigns in
1968 and 1972, foreign policy will dominate a presidential election as
it hasn't done through successive convulsions from the collapse of the
Soviet Union to the first Gulf War. The slogan that captured American
politics in 1992 was "It's the economy, stupid." In 1996, fewer than 5
percent voted on the basis of foreign policy.

Next year, however, the war cry is apt to be "It's terrorism, stupid."
How does an open and disputatious democracy (i.e. us) deal with a
ruthless group of radical Islamists with no known address, who are
willing, even eager, to die in what they view as an existential
struggle between the West and Islam? Not since Saladin crushed the
Crusader armies at the Horns of Hattin in 1187 has any Islamic group
felt that it had the power to drive the infidel from the Middle East
and threaten the West.

Every candidate will have to face the reality that terrorists may
become armed with technologies that literally permit them to wage a
world war. Candidates who equivocate on this will surely fall.

The West was united against the Soviet Union and won. The dismaying
fact is that today the West is divided on terrorism. Too many believe
that the American answer is, in itself, a source of instability and
hatred. But what was America to do when it suffered more casualties on
9/11 than at Pearl Harbor? The Bush administration concluded that we
had to go on the offensive, even to the point of pre-emption--to get
them before they get us.

Love-hate. The case for pre-emption is strong. It does not fit the
normal lexicon of democratic polity, but the imminent threat today is
not the imminent threat of yesterday, when armies massed at frontiers,
advertising their hostile intentions. There will be no warning from
those who hide in the dark, intent on inflicting death on thousands,
perhaps hundreds of thousands, irrespective of race, religion, or
creed.

There is a positive side to the doctrine of pre-emption as practiced in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Given that the Arab world is the heartland of
radical Islamism, the Bush administration sees instituting the freedoms
we associate with democracy as essential for a stable society whose
energies may be turned inward, where they belong. If we could undertake
this task with friends and allies, it would be for the best, and we
should certainly try harder. But we must do it, even if it means going
it alone.

Everybody knows that this is the American century. Some love it, and
some, of course, hate it. Why? Because our dominance seems ordained for
decades, given the relative youth of our population compared with those
of Europe and China, not to mention our widening technological gap with
the rest of the world.

Not surprisingly, this has caused other big powers to rethink where
they fit. Russia dissolved its empire and now lives within borders that
reflect no historical precedent. It seeks a new relationship with the
West and with the former satellite states of the Soviet Union. China is
emerging from centuries of decline as a major power. Europe is
redefining whatever political entity will emerge from the European
Union. As Henry Kissinger has pointed out, "Never before has a ***new
world order*** had to be assembled from so many different perceptions
of the world, or on so global a scale."

The world understands that American involvement is unavoidable. Whether
it's saving Mexico from economic collapse, dissuading China from
attacking Taiwan, mediating between India and Pakistan, or resolving
the threat of North Korea's nuclear capability and Iran's incipient
nuclear arsenal, the role of the United States is crucial.

But our greatest challenge remains terrorism, and it is distressingly
complicated. The fanaticism that derives from a twisted apprehension of
Islam is aggravated further by the Middle East's long history of
autocracy and religious intolerance and by the yawning gulf between
rich and poor. ***This, in turn, breeds resentment among the urbanized
poor--from whose ranks the terrorists are increasingly drawn--and among
the educated elite with no political place to go.**** ["Custodial
Democracy- putting black people in cages, and the DCF-Rowlandgate Jails
Enterprise.]

Given that our geography no longer protects us, we must be concerned
with the survival of America as an open and free society as we seek to
protect ourselves while preserving our liberties. This may not be
universally popular; the balance between liberty and order will be
contentious. But at the end of the day the election will be a test of
our resolve, as it was for the citizens in High Noon, when Gary Cooper
insisted on confronting the gunmen while the town cowered--and then,
finally, cheered.