All of the above have to come to the realization that they are IRRELIVANT and useless. NATO has no Carrier Battle Groups, they have no deployable Troops, no Airlift capability, without the US supplying the planes and the ships. NATO can barely handle KOSAVO, and the US supplied the Lions share of Troops and support. The UNITED NATIONS has no enforcement power without the United States. Without the United States Military Power to back up the UN, their resolutions are nothing but WALLPAPER. So if they don't get on board so be it. We can go it alone, we still have 8 European Nations that support us, and Britain. So NATO and UN can go fly a KITE! It was our buildings that were Rammed by 3 airliners, not the UN or NATOs buildings.
MSFE sez "even the remotest of Swiss valleys will be affected by the `nukular´ fallout of american democratization efforts in the middle east, let alone unexpected side-effects of liberation and implementation of human rights." MSFE, can you explain this a little further? Its sounds like Euro Babble from the Saddam School of Government, LOL. But I am sure you can explain if further to our satisfaction. WILD
Such a ridiculous statement is impossible to explain. But if we're lucky, he'll find a Guardian article to cut and paste that will, in some way, explain the dangers of liberation and the implementation of human rights to him and his fellow Swiss "neutralists." For sheer entertainment value, it's tough to beat msfe & Candle!
I don't think it is all about the oil. I think the US is also getting sick and tired of being in bed with the Saudis since a majority of the 9/11 are from that country not to mention they are the primary financiers of the madrasas . I think they are making a calculated gamble that if the US can deal with a milder regime in Iraq, it does'nt have to be too cozy with the Saudis and can demand better reforms from them-i.e. democracy, end the madrasas funding,etc.
Among other laughable points - Syria on the Human Rights board and Iran and Iraq on the disarmament board. Let me guess what's next: Bin Laden as honorary chair of the Anti-Terrorism Committee. Sometimes you've got to wonder how long our patience will last.
hapajerkof, get your cronies, you know.. maxine, freealways(nice new alias for max401) agin should pop in on your defense any minute now, and of course the unforgettable keymarfye, and chew on this for a while. You are many in nicks but very few if not one in reality so it won't take too much of your time. Keymarfye the best pile o crap layer around. Man you make Greenie's speeches easy to understand compared to your 1000 words that mean s$$t, but hey! they sound really good tho, nice command of english language I got to give you ole buddy Ok ok ok but to the subject. The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence. Source: [ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:, 2002-09-29 00:00:00.000 Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy. The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing. In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions. And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we. Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition. Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11. To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts. It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities." In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence. "The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops." Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department. 'Constabulary duties' Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power." To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations." To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed. More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia. The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush. Effect on allies The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy. The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense. One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry. Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.....more in article Costly global commitment Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says. Kagan is more blunt. "People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up." The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor and looky here who is who: Paul Wolfowitz Political science doctorate from University of Chicago and dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins University during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001. John Bolton Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the first Bush administration as assistant secretary for international organization affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, May 2001. Eliot Cohen Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and at the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins and is the author...more in article http://www.thetip.org/art_The_President_s_Real_Goal_in_Iraq__201_icle.html Keymar as you noticed and just for you I use less and less exclamations. Candletrader you had it right about the imperialistic attitude. Do a closer search, one will easily discover that a great number of state department and cabinet level goons hold Israeli passports. IS THAT LEGAL? and who's interests do they serve? Where is their allegiance? What the f@$k are you doing to my country??