einmal ein tripod

smultronschersminen i motljus

Anteckningar den 28 mars 2003

Tankar om kriget och sanningen. En "sanning" från i förrgår kan lätt bytas ut mot en ny, senare "sanning". Det är som att ändra i datorn: Hur enkelt som helst! Ena dan hade en hel irakisk brigad invid Basra kapitulerat till engelsmännen. Några dagar senare hade de aldrig kapitulerat. Nu låg det till så här: Brigadmedlemmarna vågade inte ge sig. Bakom dem stod nämligen hela tiden skjutklara araber. För att citera ur DN (Per Jönsson, sid 8 DN fredagen den 28 mars 2003) .. soldaterna riskerar att skjutas av sina egna officerare om de ger upp. Andra avlivningssätt vore tänkbara. Gas exempelvis. Saddam & Söner förfogar som bekant över massvis med massförstörelsevapen. Anfallet mot Irak motiverades ju av arabernas innehav av massförstörelsevapen. Det var motivet i februari. Andra motiv har luftats både förr och senare. Märk väl: det är bara krigsförespråkarna som ideligen ändrat sina motiv.
Man tänker osökt på när Jesus Kristus öde beseglades. Pilatus frågade då folkmassan; "behöver vi fler bevis?". "Nej", svarade folket. Denna fil finns numer i Tripod folder

U p p

N e d [Perle 2009]

Anteckningar den 29 mars 2003

Tankar om kriget och sanningen - våren 2003

Läs också om Perles åsikt 3½ år senare!

After the war

At a recent meeting at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington - attended by Richard Perle, who is fast emerging as the éminence grise of the Bush administration - influential neoconservative thinkers restated their agenda for American foreign and security policy. Iraq was just the beginning.
Thereafter, it was proposed, a series of countries that have incurred Washington's wrath would suffer the same fate. After "axis of evil" members North Korea and Iran, Syria was added to the list of states that would "benefit" from American-led regime change in a world in which France and Germany would be contained and the United Nations reformed. Implicit in the neoconservative agenda is a belief that America can reserve the right to act when and where it chooses, unshackled by the conventions of international consensus. But for the British such an agenda is a bridge too far.
The British have supported the Bush administration over Iraq because Saddam Hussein's evasion and duplicity threatens not only an already tortured region but also the credibility of the United Nations - potentially undermining justifiable coercion, which remains vital as a tool of international security. But the neoconservatives seem to think, mistakenly, that the Iraq war is establishing a precedent in international law under which American "might" is automatically endowed with "right."
For the British a world in which the United Nations had been stripped of all authority would be an infinitely more dangerous place than it is now. For all the UN's many imperfections, its de facto subjugation to American power is something that London would simply not countenance. The United Nations remains a cornerstone of British foreign policy; on this issue Britain's position remains closer to that of France than that of the American neoconservatives.

The neoconservatives are driven by a belief that exceptional American power makes America exceptionally vulnerable and thus confers upon them a right to act beyond multilateral frameworks. In exceptional circumstances, such as the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, that position was both justifiable and sustainable. But the war on terror is now moving from reaction to strategy - and the United States needs to bring all of its natural allies along with it because America simply cannot win such a continuing fight alone. In addition, the United States must make far greater efforts to demonstrate linkage between states and terror. With Saddam, given the nature of the regime and past behavior, there were reasonable grounds for suspicion. But the war on terror must not be used as a blank check for attacking states that fail to live up to America's standards. At one level, of course, the neoconservatives are right: The United States could do without the political and military support of Britain and other European allies for a long time to come and still dominate militarily.

But winning hearts and minds is at the core of modern conflict. hide Abandoning of any attempt to assess the intent of a state, and judging threats purely on the basis of perceived capabilities or volatile rhetoric, would strip American action of any "right," reducing it to an exercise solely of might. In such circumstances Washington would lose London's support - and in so doing would inflict incalculable damage on America's standing in the world. hide A rejection of America's closest ally would be proof to the world that the inspirational American idea in international relations was at an end.
It is a paradox that those now in power in the United States, traditionally the most inspirational of countries, espouse a "we know best" doctrine with clear echoes of 19th-century British imperial policy. hide The neoconservatives, backed up by an inherent tendency in much of the American media to exaggerate American efforts and belittle those of allies, seem totally convinced by their own hyperpatriotic propaganda.
But they need to realize that if Britain parted company with the United States it would not only mean the complete isolation of American power in the wider world, but almost certainly the isolation of the neoconservative creed within American domestic politics.hide America created modern international law. It is in America's interests to live by it - because ultimately it is inspirational America that will make the world a better place, not mighty America.hide

The writer is a member of faculty at the Geneva Center for Security Policy. This is a personal comment and does not reflect the views of the center.

International Herald Tribune:   The U.S. risks losing Britain (without any permission - I beg deepest ! )    
Author:          Julian Lindley French
Article Date:    2003-03-29  


Tre och ett halvt år senare!

Berater-Kritik an Bush: Zu späte oder gar keine Entscheidungen

Er glaube zwar nach wie vor, dass der damalige irakische Präsident Saddam Hussein in der Lage gewesen wäre, Massenvernichtungswaffen zu entwickeln. Aber diese Bedrohung wäre auch durch andere Mittel als durch eine Militärintervention zu kontrollieren gewesen. Zudem seien viele Entscheidungen während des Krieges zu spät oder gar nicht getroffen worden, sagte Perle weiter, ohne diesen Punkt näher zu erklären. "Letztendlich steht der Präsident dafür in der Verantwortung", sagte er.

Die Denkfabriken der neokonservativen Bewegung setzen sich für eine aggressive Auý?enpolitik ein, bei der Demokratie auch mit militärischen Mitteln durchgesetzt werden soll. Der Irak sollte das Musterbeispiel für diese Politik sein. Schon 1998 hatte das "Project for the New American Century" in einem offenen Brief gefordert, Saddam Hussein zu stürzen

"Riesige Fehler"

Nun ist Perle nicht der einzige Neokonservative, der den Präsidenten für das Scheitern der Irak-Mission in Haftung nimmt. [...]

Källa: Der Spiegel 4 November 2006

Perle's Deceptions

Perle's lies are no surprise to me. This is the was JEWS operate. How many times have the Israeli child killers conducted heinous acts, and then lied about it. If you were breathing, and understood English in the period Jan 01 to Jan 08, you KNOW that the evil Zionist NeoCons were behind all the evil and horror of the Bush Administration. Perle must be a total and complete FOOL to think he could get away with his lies. William | 02.22.09 - 4:23 am |
* * * Richard Perle is a man who is rotting inside. Remove all who have dual citzenship and ask then to make a choice America or Israel. Remove all the Zionists from US Government positions. MaxMCapacity | 02.22.09 - 4:51 am |
* * * @ William | 02.22.09 - 4:23 am "Perle must be a total and complete FOOL to think he could get away with his lies." * * * He thinks all of us are complete fools, anyway. Simon Bar Sinister | 02.22.09 - 5:06 am |

Källa: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22065.htm * * *