archive.stlimc.org : http://archive.stlimc.org
archive.stlimc.org

Re: Lebanon, Iran, Sudan: Three more premeditated neocon wars

this official imperialist u.s. policy of expansionism - following on the heels of the cold war era strategies of containment, then rollback (under the reagan revolutionaries) - was actually reactivated by the clinton regime. don't get caught just looking at the neocons (or israel([search])), who were originally anti-communist liberals, and very crafty at uniting the new right, the ultra-nationalists, free-trade fanatics, and xtian right. sure, the bush regime has added more militant-strength steroids to u.s. foreign policy, no doubt, but whether it's destablization through economic globalisation or spreading free-trade absolutism via jackbooted military strategies, at the end of the day the goal remains the same.

as an illustration, here's a 1993 speech from a clinton nat'l security advisor, anthony lake, titled from containment to enlargement, that singled out both iran & iraq as "backlash states".

"A strategy of enlargement suggests our principal concerns should be strengthening our democratic core in North America, Europe and Japan; consolidating and enlarging democracy and markets in key places; and addressing backlash states such as Iran and Iraq."
www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/lakedoc.html

reading lake's speech doesn't sound noticeably different than what the current regime has put into official doctrine. and for another deja-vu-all-over-again moment, check out bill clinton's address to the nation after he ordered the bombing of that drug factory in sudan back in august of 1998 and see if the rhetoric doesn't ring any bells

www.oldamericancentury.org/downloads/1998-08-20-clinton.htm

i'll give ya a taste if ya don't like following links…

"Good afternoon. Today I ordered our Armed Forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security.

I want to speak with you about the objective of this action and why it was necessary. Our target was terror. Our mission was clear — to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today.

The groups associated with him come from diverse places, but share a hatred for democracy, a fanatical glorification of violence, and a horrible distortion of their religion to justify the murder of innocents. They have made the United States their adversary precisely because of what we stand for and what we stand against."


what do we stand for? cheap oil, unfettered predatory capitalism, (unsustainable) growth, & jesus christ

john bellamy foster has a worthwhile read on the overall grand strategy underlying u.s. foreign policy over at monthly review,
A Warning to Africa: The New U.S. Imperial Grand Strategy
www.monthlyreview.org/0606jbf.htm
 

Account Login

Media Centers

Quote-of-the-Moment

An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.
-- Mark Twain
Source: "Glances at History" (suppressed)
 

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software