US/UK Neo-conservative policy of global aggression
frank_talker | 30.04.2003 08:38
Reviews the policies of US and UK neo-conservatives (New Labour) that drove the war on Iraq and their continuing aggression.
The US/UK war against Iraq has caused severe damage to the authority of the United Nations and international law, damaged the unity and purpose of the European Union and destabilised and divided the World into two camps - the UK/US versus the rest of the World. It is the policy of aggressively pursuing narrowly-defined American/Zionist interests without concern for anyone or anything else.
This document reviews US - and by implication UK - policy. The people of Iraq have my deepest sympathies for the death and destruction that they have endured and their continuing occupation.
It is US policy to pre-emptively attack "rogue states". The definition of 'rogue states' is highly subjective and may involve unfounded claims concerning weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, support of terrorism, etc ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2982421.stm
Rumsfeld heralds 'first strike' era
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that his country has entered a new era in which it must pre-emptively seek out and prevent attacks by terrorists and terrorist states.
Mr Rumsfeld said: "The task we have is a different one in the 21st century - it is not conventional, it is unconventional.
"It requires us to seek out and defend and prevent the attacks by terrorists.
"It may be an untidy world, but our country and our friends and allies are going to be able to preserve our way of life, continue our way of life, not climb into holes and hide."
QUOTATION ENDS
http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationID=1214
Origins of Regime Change in Iraq
Proliferation Brief, Volume 6, Number 5
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Long before September 11, before the first inspections in Iraq had started, a small group of influential officials and experts in Washington were calling for regime change in Iraq. Some never wanted to end the 1991 war. Many are now administration officials. Their organization, dedication and brilliance offer much to admire, even for those who disagree with the policies they advocate.
We have assembled on our web site links to the key documents produced since 1992 by this group, usually known as neo-conservatives, and analysis of their efforts. They offer a textbook case of how a small, organized group can determine policy in a large nation, even when the majority of officials and experts originally scorned their views.
In the Beginning
In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.
The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.
Links to Likud
In 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, now administration officials, joined in a report to the newly elected Likud government in Israel calling for "a clean break" with the policies of negotiating with the Palestinians and trading land for peace. They said "Israel can shape its strategic environment"by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq"Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly." They called for "reestablishing the principle of preemption."
In 1998, 18 prominent conservatives wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to "aim at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." Most of these experts are now officials in the administration, including Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.
QUOTATION ENDS, DOCUMENT CONTINUES
'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' was published by the "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000."
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htma
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.
...
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran
...
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.
QUOTATIONS ENDS
Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid.
The British Labour Party has a long history of financial difficulties and an overdraft of millions of pounds. Lord Levy is a hugely successfull fundraiser for the British Labour party.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,521544,00.html
Ewen MacAskill
Saturday July 14, 2001
The Guardian
Gideon Meyer, an Israeli diplomat now back in Jerusalem, did his country an immense service when he was based at Israel's London embassy in the early 1990s.
Perhaps he even deserves a plaque on the walls of the Israeli foreign ministry to commemorate the achievement.
For Meyer played a small but crucial role in shifting the British Labour party, then broadly supportive of the Palestinians, to a position today where Tony Blair has become Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's best friend in Europe.
While Labour was still in opposition, Meyer spotted two rising talents and invited them both to lunch. Gordon Brown turned him down on that occasion, but Blair accepted. Meyer's coup, though - and he remembers the exact date in 1994 - was to arrange a further meeting: a dinner at which he introduced Blair to a leading member of the Jewish community with close links to the Israeli establishment: Michael Levy, a businessman who had made his money in the music industry.
Blair was concerned, as was Levy, about Labour's estrangement from the Jewish community in Britain. Labour had identified strongly with Israel after its birth in 1948, when it was seen by many in the party as an underdog surrounded by hostile Arab states. The mood changed sharply after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, led by Sharon, and the sympathy of many Labour MPs moved to the Palestinians.
Blair and other New Labour politicians put that trend into reverse, while Levy - as well as providing the Labour leadership with funds - helped win back disaffected members of the Jewish community to the party. After the 1997 general election, Blair rewarded him with a peerage and, astonishingly, made him his special envoy to the Middle East. This was an indulgence on Blair's part - giving a friend the chance to engage in a new late-life hobby, shuttle diplomacy, of which he had no previous experience.
What is extraordinary is that Blair considered that someone as closely tied to the Israeli elite as Levy could act for Britain as an intermediary in the Middle East conflict.
...
Blair would reject any suggestion that his position is unduly influenced by Levy - and the tilt towards Israel clearly reflects a wider ideological shift in New Labour thinking away from causes such as the Palestinians.
QUOTATION ENDS
Anti-war activists worldwide are campaigning for democracy and the rule of law. They are not anti-American, anti-British, terrorists or any form of traitors. They are opposed to the excessive aggression and militarism of the current US and UK administrations and want World order, peace and stability. They recognise that Bush and Blair's brutal acts of aggression are unprovoked and unnecessary and a threat to World peace and order.
Bliar pursued support for America's Zionist policies disregarding huge opposition from the public in Britain and worldwide and huge opposition from within his own Labour party and the labour movement. There is no room for democracy in Bliar's Labour party - controlled centrally by the kitchen cabinet - 'trusty' Alastair Campbell, twice-disgraced Peter "I am not a liar. I did not lie." Mandelson, the 'Labour Party Chairman', et al.
This document reviews US - and by implication UK - policy. The people of Iraq have my deepest sympathies for the death and destruction that they have endured and their continuing occupation.
It is US policy to pre-emptively attack "rogue states". The definition of 'rogue states' is highly subjective and may involve unfounded claims concerning weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, support of terrorism, etc ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2982421.stm Rumsfeld heralds 'first strike' era
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that his country has entered a new era in which it must pre-emptively seek out and prevent attacks by terrorists and terrorist states.
Mr Rumsfeld said: "The task we have is a different one in the 21st century - it is not conventional, it is unconventional.
"It requires us to seek out and defend and prevent the attacks by terrorists.
"It may be an untidy world, but our country and our friends and allies are going to be able to preserve our way of life, continue our way of life, not climb into holes and hide."
QUOTATION ENDS
http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationID=1214 Origins of Regime Change in Iraq
Proliferation Brief, Volume 6, Number 5
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Long before September 11, before the first inspections in Iraq had started, a small group of influential officials and experts in Washington were calling for regime change in Iraq. Some never wanted to end the 1991 war. Many are now administration officials. Their organization, dedication and brilliance offer much to admire, even for those who disagree with the policies they advocate.
We have assembled on our web site links to the key documents produced since 1992 by this group, usually known as neo-conservatives, and analysis of their efforts. They offer a textbook case of how a small, organized group can determine policy in a large nation, even when the majority of officials and experts originally scorned their views.
In the Beginning
In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.
The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.
Links to Likud
In 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, now administration officials, joined in a report to the newly elected Likud government in Israel calling for "a clean break" with the policies of negotiating with the Palestinians and trading land for peace. They said "Israel can shape its strategic environment"by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq"Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly." They called for "reestablishing the principle of preemption."
In 1998, 18 prominent conservatives wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to "aim at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." Most of these experts are now officials in the administration, including Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.
QUOTATION ENDS, DOCUMENT CONTINUES
'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' was published by the "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000."
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htma Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.
...
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran
...
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.
QUOTATIONS ENDS
Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid.
The British Labour Party has a long history of financial difficulties and an overdraft of millions of pounds. Lord Levy is a hugely successfull fundraiser for the British Labour party.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,521544,00.html Ewen MacAskill
Saturday July 14, 2001
The Guardian
Gideon Meyer, an Israeli diplomat now back in Jerusalem, did his country an immense service when he was based at Israel's London embassy in the early 1990s.
Perhaps he even deserves a plaque on the walls of the Israeli foreign ministry to commemorate the achievement.
For Meyer played a small but crucial role in shifting the British Labour party, then broadly supportive of the Palestinians, to a position today where Tony Blair has become Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's best friend in Europe.
While Labour was still in opposition, Meyer spotted two rising talents and invited them both to lunch. Gordon Brown turned him down on that occasion, but Blair accepted. Meyer's coup, though - and he remembers the exact date in 1994 - was to arrange a further meeting: a dinner at which he introduced Blair to a leading member of the Jewish community with close links to the Israeli establishment: Michael Levy, a businessman who had made his money in the music industry.
Blair was concerned, as was Levy, about Labour's estrangement from the Jewish community in Britain. Labour had identified strongly with Israel after its birth in 1948, when it was seen by many in the party as an underdog surrounded by hostile Arab states. The mood changed sharply after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, led by Sharon, and the sympathy of many Labour MPs moved to the Palestinians.
Blair and other New Labour politicians put that trend into reverse, while Levy - as well as providing the Labour leadership with funds - helped win back disaffected members of the Jewish community to the party. After the 1997 general election, Blair rewarded him with a peerage and, astonishingly, made him his special envoy to the Middle East. This was an indulgence on Blair's part - giving a friend the chance to engage in a new late-life hobby, shuttle diplomacy, of which he had no previous experience.
What is extraordinary is that Blair considered that someone as closely tied to the Israeli elite as Levy could act for Britain as an intermediary in the Middle East conflict.
...
Blair would reject any suggestion that his position is unduly influenced by Levy - and the tilt towards Israel clearly reflects a wider ideological shift in New Labour thinking away from causes such as the Palestinians.
QUOTATION ENDS
Anti-war activists worldwide are campaigning for democracy and the rule of law. They are not anti-American, anti-British, terrorists or any form of traitors. They are opposed to the excessive aggression and militarism of the current US and UK administrations and want World order, peace and stability. They recognise that Bush and Blair's brutal acts of aggression are unprovoked and unnecessary and a threat to World peace and order.
Bliar pursued support for America's Zionist policies disregarding huge opposition from the public in Britain and worldwide and huge opposition from within his own Labour party and the labour movement. There is no room for democracy in Bliar's Labour party - controlled centrally by the kitchen cabinet - 'trusty' Alastair Campbell, twice-disgraced Peter "I am not a liar. I did not lie." Mandelson, the 'Labour Party Chairman', et al.
frank_talker