The PNAC report also:

lt refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

lt describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

lt reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

lt says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

lt spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';


and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.
BlueCat Reviewed by BlueCat on . Why did america atatcked iraq? Sorry to post another thread about this subject, but id just like to have a clear answer: why did america attacked iraq, and will probably soon attack iran?? plz dont tell me to find massive destruction weapons, tons of countries have nuclear weapons, just like france, north korea, china, etc etc etc why did they spent over 100 billions of $$$ on this war, if there would be no profit done at all at the end?? only if the only beneficier could be bush? plz a simple answer i guess most of Rating: 5