The USA is trying to put its finger into the wrong cookie jar and create a problem (nasty Russian bear), so that a valiant knight from the white town on the hill has to be summoned to the rescue at some point. US meddling was very visible during the Russia-Ukraine gas spat, and especially during negotiations on forming the Ukrainian government.
But then again - is USA capable of functioning without an external enemy to unite against? "Terror" proved to be a nut too tough, so why shouldn't they refer back to the good ol' enemy which was beaten once, and has to be dismantled even more for every civilized person's benefit? After all, as Stratfor would say, there are only three countries that ever directly threatened USA: Britain, Mexico, and Russia. The first one was first made a friend, but then encouraged to dismantle its empire. The second was first dismantled and then made a friend (sort of). Therefore, some kind of dismantling of the third is in order.
Not quite sure when Mexico ever posed a serious threat to the US. On the other hand you somehow managed to forget Germany and Japan. There's also the Confederacy which we defeated, reincorporated, and had to deal with ever since. Nor do I see what US encouragement of Britain to dismantle its empire had to do with its actual dismantlement - perhaps it went slightly faster than otherwise, but that's it.
I was (very imprecisely) quoting Stratfor. Can't access their archive behind the sub wall, but might be able to provide an exact quote at some point.
As the American web site Stratfor (which has close ties with US intelligence) recognized on November 19 of last year in an article called "America Unplugged," when it comes to Russia, "the United States is playing for keeps." "The Soviet Union was one of only three states that have ever directly threatened the United States the other two being the British Empire and Mexico. The Soviet Union also came as close as any power ever has to uniting Eurasia into a single integrated, continental power the only external development that might be able to end the United States' superpowership. These little factoids are items that policymakers neither forget nor take lightly. So while U.S. policy toward China is to delay its rise, and U.S. policy toward Venezuela is geared toward containment, U.S. policy toward Russia is as simple as it is final: dissolution."
"The Soviet Union was one of only three states that have ever directly threatened the United States the other two being the British Empire and Mexico. The Soviet Union also came as close as any power ever has to uniting Eurasia into a single integrated, continental power the only external development that might be able to end the United States' superpowership. These little factoids are items that policymakers neither forget nor take lightly. So while U.S. policy toward China is to delay its rise, and U.S. policy toward Venezuela is geared toward containment, U.S. policy toward Russia is as simple as it is final: dissolution."
For us here, Iraq debacle is just that - a debacle. For many Iraqis, it's a catastrophe as they are on the receiving end of a misguided policy. The stuff these guys write might put myself, my family and friends, and my country, into another disaster. I've lived through one, and it was one too many for me. So, I cannot help noticing similarities between Lugar's thinking and the paragraph I quoted.
Small country has popular terrorist group. Terrorist group commits act against big country. Big country puts an ultimatum to small country regarding the terrorist group. Small country does not totally comply. Big country attacks.
If anything I think Afghanistan was more compliant then Serbia. Guess time will tell what history books will be written.
Britains part then, hmm. I guess if they had been hell-bent on avoiding war, they could have stayed out. In neither of the two was Britain the attacked party but brittish allies were. And I guess there is a pretty strict limit on how many allies you can leave hanging in the wind if you want to uphold a world empire. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
