"I would support a Presidential candidate who pledged to take the following steps: ... At the end of the war in the Persian Gulf, press for ... a 'new world order' based not upon Pax Americana but on peace through law with a stronger U.N. and World Court."
by:
George McGovern
(1922- ) US Congressman (D-SD, 1957-1961), US Senator (D-SD, 1961-1981), Democratic presidential nominee 1972
Source:
New York Times, February, 1991
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
The wannabe slaves and pridefully ignorant never cease to amaze me; they keep hitting a single key (world peace) on a full keyboard ('A'bortion to 'Z'oology) of immoral and anti-law legislation being built up daily by the UN. Nothing being passed in the UN will ensure peace, it will ultimately only cause tyranny and chaos, misery, death and destruction. The world court is set up to ensure all the malignant tyrannies that have been perpetrated on the American Freeman, and worse. The UN does not recognize the nobility of the sovereign individual (only the borg).
 -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    UNelected, UNaccountable and and UNethical. To Hell with the UN.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    Thank goodness George was never president. A stronger U.N. and World Court, a disaster for the USA.
     -- jim k, austin, tx     
  •  
    Ditto Jim above.Anyway,The Quote Above..."Peace through law"? It hasen't happened yet in the History of Humanity.How would a UN bring peace through law?I remain open minded but Instinctively Skeptical!
     -- Anonymous     
  •  
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN      
    Federal Governments are pretty much bad across the board. Can you imagine what will happen if the socialist, dictator led UN ever gets enough power to start dictating policy beyond yapping at one another in a large room. Yeeesh.
     -- Gerald Wry, Moncton     
  •  
    Right on, Gerald.
     -- Ethan, Clinton     
  •  
    I don't think I have ever heard a politician or talking head speak negatively about the UN ever... just what does that mean?
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Bush wasn't elected by the people either.
     -- RobertSRQ     
  •  
    I'd support a president that obeyed the rule of law as put forth by the Constitution, and not arbitrary self-given privileges.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    I am not all surprised by the thumbs down. Most of the folks are for disunion of the United States, so how can they support even a great "union" or cooperation among the nations of the world?. Some nations of the world are frustrated by Americas go it alone mentality on world wide issues such as envrironmental concerns. Many Americans are concerned about environmental issues in the rain forest, Africa and Asia but if foreigners show concern about the Everglades or our forests some Americans take the attitude that they should mind their own business. Remember "The Ugly American" of the 1960's-1070's. Does he maybe still exist?
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    "Peace through law" - Anonymous you have missed the history boat if you don't understand the relationship between peace and law.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Always was an idiot. The U.N. couldn't be functional unless it actually opposed tyranny and socialism.
     -- warren, olathe     
  •  
    RobertSRQ who did elect Bush if the people didn't? What an air head.
     -- warren, olathe     
  •  
    I believe RobertSRQ is referring to the fact that Bush lost the popular vote but still won the presidency. Not exactly a "Democracy" now, is it? Should we consider the "paradox of voting"? I'm not sure who Waffler is speaking of concerning those that are for the "disunion" of the United States... I whole-heartedly support the federal union and the Constitution upon which unified and made these states the greatest power ever known. Today, however, we are not living, acting, or teachings the principles upon which our government was originally built. We maintain the facade of our originality and "goodness", but we have progressed down the road towards an evolved state that the founder's wouldn't have agreed with. Why? This is not a moral issue, it's merely a matter of choice and of what works. History is a conglomerate of pressures and choices-- a type of butterfly effect of the ages. Leaders of nations have always been presented with new obstacles wherein they seek to find new answers. The problem with the leaders of today is that through their epochcentrist beliefs, they reject the lessons of history. This is not new. The history of government has seen these times before, and they will see them again; however, history has never seen these times on such a grandiose scale. Today we're faced with literal globalization, not just the perceived world (as in the days of the Romans). The idea of a "unified" world is not new. The Romans, Greeks, Christians, Arabs, etc. all worked towards a unified world under a political and religious center. If the unified political center actually worked, why not move towards a one-world government? I'm not so ethnocentric as to throw a blanket statement against a one-world government; I am, however, not so ignorant as to blindly accept the UN on face value. Freedom works. It always has, it always will. Our country is living proof. Call it principles, virtues, morals, or whatever you want-- liberty and freedom works. History has proven this time, and time, and time, and time again. The UN, however, is not built upon the "principles" of freedom that our country was built on. A house not built on a solid foundation will fall.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
     -- Anonymous      
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2019 Liberty-Tree.ca