One of my key points in my Salvo is that the rest of the world accepted a unipolar world, led by the USA, under Bill Clinton. Most not only accepted it tacitly, they accepted it IN PRINCIPLE. Only the French and Chinese seemed interested in discussing how to re-establish multipolarity and Balance of Power.
Now, meetings are rife on every continent.
Why? Because of Cowboy rationalizations for immature use of Pax Americana power. Read the excerpt below Are we prepared to embrace this as the standard for offensive military action for all nations of the world? Would the world be a safer place?
More important, is it wise EVEN IF YOU WANT CONTINUATION OF PAX AMERICANA POWER IN A UNIPOLAR (AMERICA-LED) WORLD?
The New Bush Doctrine is: "If you even seem to us to be thinking about trying to game the system toward behaving the way we don't like, then we have a right to charge in."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/politics/11preempt.html?oref=login October 11, 2004 NEWS ANALYSIS: FOREIGN POLICY A Doctrine Under Pressure: Pre-emption Is Redefined By DAVID E. SANGER
CRAWFORD, Tex., Oct. 10 - Under pressure to explain anew his decision to invade Iraq in light of a damaging report from the C.I.A.'s top weapons inspector, President Bush appears to be quietly redefining one of the signature philosophies of his administration - his doctrine of pre-emptive military action.
Traditionally, pre-empting an enemy is all about urgency, striking before the enemy strikes. In the prelude to the invasion in March of last year, Mr. Bush and his aides stopping short of saying Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent" threat. Still, they used urgent-sounding language at every turn to explain why they could not afford to wait for inspectors to complete their work, or for the United Nations Security Council to come to a consensus on authorizing military action. "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud," he said in a speech delivered Oct. 7, 2002.
But the C.I.A. report released last week, written by Charles A. Duelfer, described the evidence as anything but clear and the peril as far from urgent. Mr. Hussein's military power began waning after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the report concluded. While Mr. Hussein most probably wanted to rebuild his illicit weapons, there is no evidence he had started by the time Mr. Bush was delivering that speech.
So over the last five days, with some subtle changes of language and a new previously undiscussed justification for the war, Mr. Bush appears to have expanded the conditions for a pre-emptive military strike. He no longer talks about urgency. Instead, for the first time, he has begun to argue that a military invasion is justified if an opponent is seeking to avoid United Nations sanctions - "gaming the system" in his words.
"We did not find the stockpiles we thought were there," Mr. Bush told supporters in Waterloo, Iowa, on Saturday. "But I want you to remember what the Duelfer report said. It said that Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. And why? Because he had the capability and knowledge to rebuild his weapon programs."
Taken at face value, Mr. Bush appears to be saying that under his new standard, a country merely has to be thinking about developing illicit weapons at some time. "He's saying intent is enough," said Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor who under the Clinton administration headed the National Intelligence Council, the group that assesses for the president when countries have trespassed that hard-to-define line.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
