Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.


Skip to first unread message


May 17, 2004, 9:01:24 AM5/17/04
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at ****

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 ...

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

"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."

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.

'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' was published by
the "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000."

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.

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.,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.

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.

*** - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored

0 new messages