In  the immediate context, this declaration by career hawk Perle  is more  intended as intimidation than a statement of practical policy.  Perle, as  one of the Bush administration house "extremists," is attempting to bully  the French rulers into swinging behind the "moderate" Powell's call for the  UN Security Council to back the planned slaughter and occupation in Iraq.

      But in the longer term, this is the inevitable drift of U.S. policy, which  aims to prevent any forces from emerging in Europe or Japan which would seek  to limit U.S. domination in favor of extending or preserving its own sphere of influence.  France, Germany, Japan, and to some extent Italy all have  ruling classes that, in whole or part, have reason to be alarmed at the  prospect of complete U.S. or U.S.-British control of their oil supplies.

      The Japanese, who bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941 to prevent strangulation by a U.S. and allied oil embargo -- which stemmed from competition over domination of China and the Pacific --  are particularly aware of this even though they find it politic to appear  as strong backers of a U.S.war on Iraq which they cannot prevent.  That is one reason they are looking for pretexts to openly establish their own arsenal of nuclear weapons.
              Written by Fred Feldman
 

  WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's
 top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.  Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan
 administration and now chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by a New York-based PR firm and attended by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials.  But while dismissing Germany's refusal to support military action against Iraq as an aberration by "a discredited chancellor," Perle warned that France's attitude was both more dangerous and more serious. "France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to  accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor."  French leaders have insisted the country will oppose any military action against Iraq without a second resolution by the United Nations Security
 Council, where it holds one of five crucial veto powers. Last November France did vote for Resolution 1441, which promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors verifying that Iraq
 has indeed dismantled its programs for chemical, biological and nuclear  weapons.

        "I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world. That is more troubling than the stance of a German chancellor, who has been largely rejected by his own people,"

        Perle said, referring to the sharp electoral defeat suffered by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's party in state elections Sunday.  Although he is not an official of the Bush administration, Perle's position as the Pentagon's senior civilian adviser gives his harsh remarks a quasi-official character and reflects the growing frustration in the White House and Pentagon with the French and German reluctance to support their U.S. and British allies.

        "Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said.   "But in the German case, the behavior of the Chancellor is idiosyncratic. He tried again to incite pacifism, and this time failed in Sunday's elections in Hesse and Lower Saxony. His capacity to do damage is now constrained.  Chancellor Schroeder is now in a box, and the Germans will recover their equilibrium."

          Perle went on to question whether the United States should ever again seek the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council on a major issue of policy, stressing that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and
 whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the U.N. or any other institution."

          "It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests," he added.
 

My reply to all of the Above,

         That final paragraph is one of the most ominous I have read on the Net and considering the fact that it comes from an ultra-rightist who has great influence within the Bush gang, the implications and trend of thought among the American
ruling class have become serious indeed.  I view this suggested policy as a harbinger of that which is to come and a trial
balloon testing the waters.  In effect, he is proposing that the US should officially become a rogue, outlaw state and make
no attempt to hide that fact to the world at large, since no nation is strong enough to prevent it from doing so.  This
would entail ignoring the UN and all international organizations in which the behavior of the US could be restricted,
managed, or limited and foster a future plagued by aggression, violence, wars, or threats of same.  It is a prescription for
interminable crises in which the US would roam the world as an ugly ogre seeking whom to intimidate, whom to attack, and
whom to rule with no significant adjustments to contrary views.
         Since 9/11, and with the major Cold War opponent no longer in existence, US ruling circles have concluded that for alleged reasons of national security the US will henceforth determine what weapons other nations can and can not have and Iraq is the first on their hit list.  Make no mistake about it, this is a qualitative leap in thought that takes mankind to a new level of international insecurity much more dangerous than that which existed during the Cold War era in which there was never any real possibility of a nuclear exchange, except during the Cuban Missile Crisis, because both sides were too restricted in their options and capabilities and too cognizant of all the implications that were involved.  Responsible views and thoughtful consideration prevailed on both sides.  Now, however, the US has concluded that it is sufficiently dominant to make demands that would have been unheard of during the prior era and the potentials are truly alarming.  Iraq is not the issue with respect to what is currently taking place.  Don't be deceived by so much heavy concentration on this topic alone.  The issue is far broader and US policy-makers know it.  US policy is the real culprit and should be placed under a microscope.  The Iraq controversy is only the tip of the alligator's eyes popping up to see what can be devoured.  Why?  Because if the US is successful in subduing Iraq it will only whet the American aggressive appetite for more conquests.  Who will be next since "aggression unchecked is aggression unleashed" to quote an American president who, on occasion, said something that was true.  Will it be North Korea or Iran?  Who will it be?  Even more important are the implications.  The logical conclusion to which this policy will take American ruling circles, if and when they should be successful in stripping Iraq of any weapons of real potency, weapons that are pejoratively and propagandistically labeled weapons of mass destruction, is to make similar demands on other states deemed untrustworthy.  And it would be only a matter of time under that proposed scenario before the US would encounter a state whose reply would be to the effect that they have no intention of reducing or eliminating anything and US agents will not be allowed to conduct inspections of their wherewithal.  That is a prescription for disaster since the safeguards that prevailed during the Cold War era no longer exist and the US refuses to recognize any restrictions under the assumption by many of its leaders that it can handle all contingencies.  This policy could truly assume a frightening dimension were such unilateral disarmament demands to be made on China or Russia since they could very well be deemed threats to American security in the not too distant future and find themselves on a revised and expanded hit list.  Why stop with Iraq when China and Russia represent greater dangers with far greater capabilities.  Some elements in the American ruling class could easily conclude that in order to be truly safe and secure ALL bases must be covered.  And to take this to the ultimate conclusion, since a boundary does not exist, the US might even go so far as to demand that France eliminate its weapons of real power since that nation votes and acts in opposition to the US in too many instances for American comfort and has done so for years.
         The critical question in all these matters is where the US intends to draw the line assuming there is to be a line, since American ruling circles are the one and only instigators of a policy that could be taking mankind down the road to
perdition.  It is time for grave concern, my friends, concern that has not existed since the World's future hung in the
balance at the Battle of Stalingrad.  Had the fascists won that encounter the entire oil-rich Caucasus, the Asian
subcontinent and the vast Soviet resources east of the Volga would have provided the fascists with strength exceeding
any power or any combination of powers on earth and we might all be living in an entirely different milieu with decidedly
different views of Adolph and Benito.