Malachi151
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,404
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...reams-20/102-8521817-1887334?v=glance&s=books
I just saw this, its by members of the PNAC, but it more clearly states their objectives, and apears to validate my theory of the war, I'm buying it so I'll soon know more.
"The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defense markets."
My statements:
"The war on Iraq was really designed to be a war on the European Union, OPEC, and the UN as much as a war on Iraq. It was designed to indirectly attack the EU and UN via the Iraqi situation. The three primary goals were to secure American influence in the Persian Gulf, weaken the EU and UN, and gain increased influence over OPEC."
"“The idea that there is an alternative 'blue water' foreign policy open to a UK which turned its back on Europe is one which would find very few takers in the United States. As Ray Seitz warned in a memorable speech, the extent to which the United Kingdom is listened to in America will be affected by American judgments about the extent to which the United Kingdom is listened to in Europe, and would be able to rally EU support for a common United States/United Kingdom policy prescription.”
I will discuss the alterative “blue water” policy of Britain again later, but I believe that while there may have been few takers on such a strategy that those few takers are currently in the White House. As Sir Kerr does point out, America’s interest in the EU is highly dictated by the extent to which the EU can be kept in line with British, and hence American, interests. Everyone involved is well aware of this."
"The first thing to understand is the underlying philosophy that is governing the Bush administration's foreign policy. That philosophy is that America is currently the sole economic and military superpower in the world and that America should take a proactive approach to ensure that this condition is strengthened and increased.
Currently the largest threat to America's position of power is the European Union. The European Union is primarily an economic threat to the United States, not a military threat.
The successful euro has proven to be the greatest emerging competition that the American dollar has seen in decades. In addition, the European Union has been growing and organizing in such a way that it was obvious to any astute observer that the EU would soon be a partner of equals with America seeking to share global authority.
Remember that members of the Bush administration have said that the US must, “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
The EU certainly fits that bill."
"The Bush administration designed their approach to Iraq in a way that was intended to undermine the UN and weaken the European Union. I believe that the Bush administration sought to either pull Britain away from the EU and possibly prevent Britain from joining the euro-zone, or to push Britain into a stronger leadership position in the EU in order to get Britain to direct the EU in line with American interests. They were probably willing to take either scenario, as both would serve American interests.
During the Clinton presidency Donald Rumsfeld was the American Ambassador to NATO stationed in Germany. Rumsfeld is a key designer of the American approach to Iraq and he was also well aware of what conditions Germany would require to support an invasion of Iraq and of course he was also well informed on the conditions of the EU. In this way Rumsfeld was able to help design a strategy that he knew the UN and other members of the EU would not accept.
The Bush administration also knew from the beginning that they would have British support under almost any conditions because of key American-British involvements and alliances, and the ties between American and British leadership interests. However, they also knew that Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, was a supporter of entering the euro-zone, something that poses a potential threat to the American economy.
So, the war on Iraq is really designed to be a war on the European Union, OPEC, and the UN as much as it is a war on Iraq. It was designed to indirectly attack the EU and UN via the Iraqi situation. The three primary goals were to secure American influence in the Persian Gulf, weaken the EU and UN, and gain increased influence over OPEC.
I am not proposing that this is an American-British agreement, I'm suggesting that this is the Bush administration's agenda, in which Britain is a piece that the Bush administration was attempting to manipulate.
As was stated in an earlier section, a critical element in the ability of OPEC to move to the euro is Britain joining the euro-zone. I believe that the Bush administration is aware of this and either attempting to prevent Britain from joining the euro-zone, or attempting to influence Tony Blair to keep Britain from supporting an OPEC move to the euro if it did join the euro-zone.
The war in Iraq was a way to attempt to disrupt the EU and bring Britain closer to American interests and American influence.
To this end the Bush administration would be attempting to strengthen Britain's "blue water" trading strategy, in which Britain would "turn its back" on Europe and ally economically with America, however the likelihood of this actually happening is not great. Nonetheless, American and British economic cooperation in Iraq could certainly strengthen American-British ties."
I just saw this, its by members of the PNAC, but it more clearly states their objectives, and apears to validate my theory of the war, I'm buying it so I'll soon know more.
"The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defense markets."
My statements:
"The war on Iraq was really designed to be a war on the European Union, OPEC, and the UN as much as a war on Iraq. It was designed to indirectly attack the EU and UN via the Iraqi situation. The three primary goals were to secure American influence in the Persian Gulf, weaken the EU and UN, and gain increased influence over OPEC."
"“The idea that there is an alternative 'blue water' foreign policy open to a UK which turned its back on Europe is one which would find very few takers in the United States. As Ray Seitz warned in a memorable speech, the extent to which the United Kingdom is listened to in America will be affected by American judgments about the extent to which the United Kingdom is listened to in Europe, and would be able to rally EU support for a common United States/United Kingdom policy prescription.”
I will discuss the alterative “blue water” policy of Britain again later, but I believe that while there may have been few takers on such a strategy that those few takers are currently in the White House. As Sir Kerr does point out, America’s interest in the EU is highly dictated by the extent to which the EU can be kept in line with British, and hence American, interests. Everyone involved is well aware of this."
"The first thing to understand is the underlying philosophy that is governing the Bush administration's foreign policy. That philosophy is that America is currently the sole economic and military superpower in the world and that America should take a proactive approach to ensure that this condition is strengthened and increased.
Currently the largest threat to America's position of power is the European Union. The European Union is primarily an economic threat to the United States, not a military threat.
The successful euro has proven to be the greatest emerging competition that the American dollar has seen in decades. In addition, the European Union has been growing and organizing in such a way that it was obvious to any astute observer that the EU would soon be a partner of equals with America seeking to share global authority.
Remember that members of the Bush administration have said that the US must, “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
The EU certainly fits that bill."
"The Bush administration designed their approach to Iraq in a way that was intended to undermine the UN and weaken the European Union. I believe that the Bush administration sought to either pull Britain away from the EU and possibly prevent Britain from joining the euro-zone, or to push Britain into a stronger leadership position in the EU in order to get Britain to direct the EU in line with American interests. They were probably willing to take either scenario, as both would serve American interests.
During the Clinton presidency Donald Rumsfeld was the American Ambassador to NATO stationed in Germany. Rumsfeld is a key designer of the American approach to Iraq and he was also well aware of what conditions Germany would require to support an invasion of Iraq and of course he was also well informed on the conditions of the EU. In this way Rumsfeld was able to help design a strategy that he knew the UN and other members of the EU would not accept.
The Bush administration also knew from the beginning that they would have British support under almost any conditions because of key American-British involvements and alliances, and the ties between American and British leadership interests. However, they also knew that Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, was a supporter of entering the euro-zone, something that poses a potential threat to the American economy.
So, the war on Iraq is really designed to be a war on the European Union, OPEC, and the UN as much as it is a war on Iraq. It was designed to indirectly attack the EU and UN via the Iraqi situation. The three primary goals were to secure American influence in the Persian Gulf, weaken the EU and UN, and gain increased influence over OPEC.
I am not proposing that this is an American-British agreement, I'm suggesting that this is the Bush administration's agenda, in which Britain is a piece that the Bush administration was attempting to manipulate.
As was stated in an earlier section, a critical element in the ability of OPEC to move to the euro is Britain joining the euro-zone. I believe that the Bush administration is aware of this and either attempting to prevent Britain from joining the euro-zone, or attempting to influence Tony Blair to keep Britain from supporting an OPEC move to the euro if it did join the euro-zone.
The war in Iraq was a way to attempt to disrupt the EU and bring Britain closer to American interests and American influence.
To this end the Bush administration would be attempting to strengthen Britain's "blue water" trading strategy, in which Britain would "turn its back" on Europe and ally economically with America, however the likelihood of this actually happening is not great. Nonetheless, American and British economic cooperation in Iraq could certainly strengthen American-British ties."
