posted March 24, 2003 at 6:29 PM MDTIt is likely that anything but superficial thought is, for the true war-monger, proof of disloyalty ... more simply, "bad attitude" which marks one off for punishment. So it isn't likely that this sort of analysis will go to the heart of those who've been hardened against discourse and diplomacy. But nontheless, articles such as The Anglo-American Military Axis by Michel Chossudovsky need to be considered.
"The proposed invasion of Iraq is intended to exclude rival European, Russian and Chinese interests from the Middle-East and Central Asian oil fields. While in the Balkans, the US "shared the spoils" with Germany and France, in the context of military operations under NATO and UN auspices, the invasion of Iraq is intended to establish US hegemony, while weakening Franco-German and Russian influence in the region.This document is hosted by the Centre for Research on Globalisation
[...]
The 1999 war in Yugoslavia contributed to reinforcing strategic, military and intelligence ties between Washington and London. After the war in Yugoslavia, U.S. Defence Secretary William Cohen and his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon, signed a "Declaration of Principles for Defence Equipment and Industrial Cooperation" so as to "improve cooperation in procuring arms and protecting technology secrets" while at the same time "easing the way for more joint military ventures and possible defence industry mergers."
Washington’s objective was to encourage the formation of a "trans-Atlantic bridge across which DoD [U.S. Department of Defence] can take its globalisation policy to Europe. …Our aim is to improve interoperability and war fighting effectiveness via closer industrial linkages between U.S. and allied companies."The above text is an excerpt from the later part of Chapter 5 of War and Globalisation.
