Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lirvan t1_j5zq0fe wrote

Why use such expansive language as "New World Order" when the main aspect wanting to be addressed would be met by an indo-pacific trade deal combined with looping Japan into the Five Eyes agreement and/or a trilateral defensive pact with Australia/USA?

Would a trade deal and a defensive agreement constitute a "New World Order?"

Further, the "New World Order" term has history in the USA, with George Bush Sr. attempting to use that terminology, and costing him his re-election.

7

dieyoufool3 t1_j5ztubi wrote

Just asked!

3

Lirvan t1_j5zus6j wrote

Thank you!

Sounds like wanting to use the expansive language due to desiring a larger change rather than a smaller one. At least, that's what I got out of the answer. Something close to the UN security committee, but limited to democratic nations.

Or perhaps Bretton Woods 2.0.

1

VanVelding t1_j5zscjv wrote

Because there's an order to the world. Changing it requires a new world order. This is a common turn of phrase and no one should stop using it just for the sake of redneck moron talking points from 30 years ago.

−1