Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

The New American Empire

The New American Empire

4.9 13
by Rodrigue Tremblay

Product Details

Infinity Publishing
Publication date:
Product dimensions:
5.50(w) x 8.50(h) x 0.77(d)

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews

The New American Empire 4.9 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 13 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
'The world should take notice when someone...with a fanatic mind and with powerful means, receives his marching orders from Heaven.' Rodrigue Tremblay, 'The New American Empire' (p. 18)______________________________ __ Bush says that he accepts responsibility for taking the U.S. to war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence. Wrong. It was not the intelligence that was faulty it was Bush's intentions to wage war against Iraq no matter what were the intelligence and the facts. He twisted the intelligence reports and invented lies around his already decided policy. That's why he is guilty of having launched a war of aggression on lies and deception, and on having violated, in so doing, international law. He should pray that he will never be brought before an interntional court of justice. Anybody who reads 'The New American Empire' knows that's the case. Everything else is spin and fantasy.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Political extremes seem to prosper at each other's expense. The world is witnessing the corrosive influence of two such extremes, i.e. the pro-Israel fascist Neocons, strongly represented in a few Washington D.C. so-called 'think tanks', and the fanatical Wahhabist Islamists, such as Osama bin Laden and his followers in al Qaeda. The United States, by design or by accident, seems to be caught between these two groups of violent ideologues, at its own peril and the dismay of the entire world. The Neocons, within the Bush administration and at the American Enterprise Institute and at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, consider that Israel is de facto the U.S. 51st state and that it should monopolize American foreign policy. They cannot conceive of an American foreign policy that does not place Israel's security first and foremost as its top objective. These fascist Neocons were the main driving force for the U. S. attacking Iraq in 2003. The bin Laden-like religious crazies have a skewed religious world view in which Western civilization and culture, and Western interests, are presented as being systematically in variance with the concept of Islamic religious states, especially in the region of the Middle East. Political democracy and free economic markets are seen by these religious totalitarians as dangerous institutions that can only lead to a secularization of their societies. These Islamofascists were behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and are behind the workings of a worldwide network of terrorism that undermines many democratic countries. Both extremes should be rejected and all efforts should be deployed to isolate them in every country, here, in Europe, in the Middle East and elsewhere. This cannot be done with guns and bombs, but with ideas and ideals. When you resort to violence, you lose the argument. That may be the main message that I am getting from reading this interesting book.
Guest More than 1 year ago
There is not much I can say about this book, except that it sizes up GWB as none other does. On page 44, for example, the author writes: '...lacking in intellectual sophistication, Bush attempts to disguise his shortcomings by adopting the style of a televangelist.' Well, that pretty much summarizes G.W. Bush's presidency: an ongoing failure. Iraq-Katrina-Miers, are all Bush-made fiascos, created by bad assessments and bad decisions. This book tells us why this is so.
Guest More than 1 year ago
--'I can never forget that one of the most gifted, best educated nations in the world, of its own free will, surrendered its fate into the hands of a maniac.'-------------------------------------------------------------- Beware of the messianic politicians who use the facades of 'God', 'Democracy' or 'Freedom' when their real goals are conquest, domination, and the control of vital resources. Beware of regulated information to meet the goals of the state, of news dressed up as propaganda, and of governments bent on enlarging their rapacious grasp over the people. Your liberty is at risk.- --On June 29, 2005, the Bush administration established the NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE, an enormous police system which has been dubbed the NEW AMERICAN SS. -As a consequence, a large part of the FBI will be under the direct control of the executive branch. -The new state apparatus will be operated under the authority of former ambassador John Negroponte, who will report directly to the President, and who himself had a direct involvement in overseeing the terrorist activities of so-called 'death squads' in Nicaragua in the 1980's. This huge police apparatus was unilateraly installed by President George W. Bush, without specific congressional approval, since it is considered part of his sweeping quasi-dictatorial powers under the new anti-terror legislation. How about our liberties in such a context? -The ACLU (AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION) has pointed out that 'the FBI is effectively being taken over by a spymaster who reports directly to the White House....It's alarming that the same person who oversees foreign spying will now oversee domestic spying, too.' -This is a major development that will have dire consequences for decades to come. --But, hold on to your seat. The new NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE arrives, moreover, in addition to the 180,000 public employees in the HOMELAND SECURITY who are also to be placed under the central authority of the President. And, as if this were not enough concentration of power in the executive branch, the PENTAGON, under the pretext of 'national security', has announced that it will 'expand (its) military activity' within the United States, a practice that has been banned since 1878, under the provisions of the POSSE COMITATUS ACT. --While these ominous developments take place, everybody seems to be asleep at the switch, especially the congressional Democrats who refuse to play their role of loyal opposition. In theory, and possibly in practice, President G. W. Bush can be in a position to use the military as his own private domestic resource, emprisoning protestors, taking over cities and supervising elections, as it often occurs in third world countries. Such a collosal consolidation of power in our democracy is unprecedented. The potential for abuse are enormous. --In his book, 'A Republic, not an Empire'. conservative columnist Pat Buchanan rejoins the author of 'The New American Empire' in raising fundamental concerns about a large government and a 'top-down' political system. In the not too distant past, we saw how relatively easy it was for politicians to use 'dirty tricks' in order to subvert their opponents. --I recommend you read both books and arm yourself with moral courage and knowledge. The coming years are not going to be easy.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This a book which is both analytical and polemic, with strong views. It's a pro-democracy and anti-imperialism book. There is no doubt about it. It rejects the neocon Hitler-like doctrine of preventive wars and militarism, and especially, it denounces the cabal in favor of merging Israeli and American foreign policies. I personally agree that a Bush-Sharon Axis of Evil does not serve either America's national interest or those of the world as a whole. There is however some validity to the concealed motive for U.S. intervention in the Middle East to secure oil supplies. But natural resources belong to their owners and no country has any right to attack another for the purpose of controling its resources, whatever the pretext. As the author is keen to point out, national sovereignty is a fixture of international order ever since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Nevertheless, as Michael Klare noted ('Resource Wars'), the 21st Century may see more wars for resources than one would like to envisage. Maybe this is a question that the United Nations and the international community should tackle before things get out of hand. Whether or not you totally agree with the author's conclusions, (that the deflection of the war against terrorism into a war against Iraq was a result of an unhealthy mix of primitive revenge, pro-Israel pressures and oil interests, all supported by fundamentalist Christians and servile media), it is a must-read for anyone interested in U.S. politics and in U.S. foreign policy at the beginning of the 21st Century. 'The New American Empire' is a great contribution for a reasoned political debate regarding U.S. foreign policy. Read this book.
Guest More than 1 year ago
They say that fools, madmen and hysterics have headaches. They get very little sleep. When in power, however, that does not prevent them from starting wars. Politics and medecine are probably closer to one another than commonly thought. - Of course, this book is not about politics and medecine. However, one wonders why some leaders become compulsive liars when they enter politics. Why would leaders lie when they are from a democratic country? More to the point, why did G.W. Bush lie about Iraq having nuclear weapons aimed at the U.S. and about al-Qaeda having official ties to Iraq? Only history will tell definitely. - This book gives the real reasons why Bush II intended to invade and occupy Iraq, even before he was elected. The facts are all there to see if one wants to take the time to reflect upon them. Tremblay analyses four official reports, starting in 1992, that clearly show that the Pentagon had plans to invade Iraq and establish permanent military bases in that country. It was thought that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were becoming less and less secure places to have such bases. - (1) In 1992, the Dick Cheney-Paul Wolfowitz Defense Department issued a document entitled 'Defense Planning Guidance on post-Cold War strategy' which openly envisioned the United States as a self-appointed world policeman, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. The proposal was repudiated by the first President Bush. - (2) In 1996, a report called 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' was prepared on behalf of Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and proposed, in effect, that Israel and the USA merge their foreign policies. - (3) In September 2000, the Project for the New American Century issued a similar report, written by a group of neo-conservative interventionists promoting the idea that the United States should grab its chance at becoming a global empire, and, in the process, become a more active supporter of Israel in the Middle East. This foreign policy report was entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses', written with the participation of 27 people, many of them active supporters of Israel's Likud Party. 'At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals', the 2000 report proclaimed. - (4) On September 20, 2002, one year after the attacks of Sept.11, the Bush administration issued a document about a new National Security Strategy, proposing a new 'Bush Doctrine' of unilateral imperial incursions abroad, along the lines proposed by the neocon cabal. It was a significant departure from previous U.S. foreign policy approaches of the last half century. The policy paper dismissed the previous policy of deterrence as a Cold War relic, spoke disparagingly of the United Nations and of its Charter, and expressed the view that the U.S. should disregard international opinion and international law when that suits U.S. interests. The rest is being lived every day under our very own eyes. - And, on March 18, 2005, the Bush administration issued another report titled 'The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America', in which it is said that the world is against us and does not accept our strength and imperial good intentions: 'Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism', listing diplomatic and legal challenges in international forums in the same sentence with terrorism. This is pure official paranoia. So diplomancy and legality are seen by the Pentagon as being as dangerous as international terrorism. Under Bush II, the U.S. administration has become the world's preeminent paranoid. And, to top it all, the Bush's neocons invoke God and pretend to be on the side of the angels, while swearing eternal vengeance against their devilish foes. If this is not scary, what is? Why did the U.S. fall
Guest More than 1 year ago
'Nothing short of self-respect and that justice which is essential to a national character ought to involve us in war.' George Washington, First President of the United States (1732-1799)-- During the 1930's, the world witnessed in horror how a dictatorial fool, Adolf Hitler, launched Germany on a path of aggressive wars in Europe. Indeed, it takes very few people to start a war and wreak havoc in the world. At first, no country wanted to incur the costs in lives and in money to try to stop the rogue nation from its militarist ambitions. Finally, a coalition of allied nations was established to defeat the tyrant.-- After World War II, Europe and the United States took concrete steps to avoid such useless international conflicts in the future. With such a goal in mind, the United Nations was created in 1945. The preamble of its Charter is very clear as to the intentions that presided its creation: 'We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourage of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind...'-- The only legal exception for a country to resort to war is the situation of self-defense when a U.N. member suffers a military attack. But even then, in the new civilized post-1945 world, it is required that such a defensive measure must be presented to the U.N.'s Security Council which is the only internatinal body responsible for maintaining peace and security. Article 51 of the Charter is very clear on that point: 'Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.'-- On March 20, 2003, the Bush administration violated fifty years of official foreign policy and decided to launch an unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Iraq, without being in a situation of self-defense and without the explicit authorization of the United Nations. This is a gesture which is bound to have severe consequences for the United States and for the world for many years to come.-- The author of 'The New American Empire' makes that point abundantly clear: The U.S.-led war against Iraq and the continuous military occupation of the country is both illegal and immoral.-- This is a foreign policy move by the Bush administration that not only violates the U.N. Charter, which is part of U.S. law, but, as the author reminds us, it also violates the principle of national sovereignty, first established by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.-- Here is the true debate: How could the U.S., as a democratic republic and as a signatory to the U.N. Charter, go against three centuries and a half of political and legal tradition without destroying the very foundations of lawful international relations? Even though everybody has ideas on that question, reading 'The New American Empire' will surely make it easier to reach a definite conclusion, and a more enlightened one at that. This is a book both timely and necessary. Strongly recommended.
Guest More than 1 year ago
* --- Tremblay's 'The New American Empire' is superb in explaining how the policy of a militarist empire came to be accepted by George W. Bush as official American foreign policy. Even though candidate Bush in the 2000 Presidential campaign proposed a humble foreign policy and appeared leery of military intervention abroad, the real-life policy he implemented has been just the reverse. Why? The easy answer is to put the blame on Sept. 11.- In fact, Sept. 11 has only been the pretext to implement plans which had been in the cards for a decade, ever since the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1991. ------Tremblay lists three reports, in 1992, 2000 and 2002, that outlined the framework for a policy of empire by the United States ... as soon as the American people could be persuaded to support it. * ---In 1992, the Dick Cheney-Paul Wolfowitz Defense Department issued a document entitled 'Defense Planning Guidance, on post-Cold War strategy' which openly envisioned the United States as a self-appointed world policeman, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush. * ---September 2000, the Project for the New American Century issued a similar report by a group of neo-conservative interventionists promoting the idea that the United States should grab its chance at becoming a global empire, and, in the process, become a more active supporter of Israel in the Middle East.--- This was a foreign policy report entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,' written with the participation of 27 people, many of them active supporters of Israel's Likud Party. It was written in the same style as a similar report written by many of the same people in 1996, called 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' on behalf of Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ---'At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals,' the 2000 report proclaimed.--- * ---On September 20, 2002, one year after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration issued a document about a new National Security Strategy, proposing a new 'Bush Doctrine' of unilateral imperial incursions abroad, along the lines proposed by the neocon cabal. It was a significant departure from previous foreign policy approaches of the last half century, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11. Supposedly designed to address the new terrorism threat, the president's report laid out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing preventive attacks on other countries when they are perceived as potential enemies. It dismissed the previous policy of deterrence as a Cold War relic, spoke disparagingly of the United Nations and of its Charter, and expressed the view that the U.S. should disregard international opinion when that suits U.S. interests. In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region of the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence. As a neocon partisan, and strong supporter of Israel, once said: ---'When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a (permanent) force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies.'--- 'Military bases and more military bases', that was the underlying cry behind the new 'Bush Doctrine'.- Mind you, the U.S. already has troops in 130 countries (out of 192!), but the neocon militarists in Washington are dreaming of having even more of the
Guest More than 1 year ago
In the USA, religion is like ketchup. It is a sauce that goes on all dishes. While the Founding Fathers were suspicious of organized religion and espoused the liberal principle upholding the separation of church and state (they wanted a 'wall of separation' between the two), today's politicians embrace religion as the best way to gather votes and money. -George W. Bush is the first American president to go against the spirit of the U.S. Constitution by bringing religion not only into the public sphere through his frequent public 'prayers', but also directly into government by having billions of tax monies directed to (tax-exempted) religious organizations. -There is a powerful political coalition behind Bush II. This coalition includes the Religious Right, the pro-Israel neoconservatives, the big industrialists/financiers and the militarists of the military-industrial complex. In fact, such a coalition should be referred to as the new 'religious-military-industrial complex'. -These groups are imperialistic; they are unilateralists, they are pro-war, they are against international law and the U.N. in particular, they are behind Israel whatever she does, and some are crazy enough to believe the 'end of the world' is near. Since they now control the most heavily-armed country in the world, the USA, they pose a threat to the peace and security of the rest of the world. -Very few Americans see things this way, but poll after poll indicates that's how the rest of the world sees things. -'The New American Empire' presents such a penetrating and clear view, which may be disturbing to those Americans who believe the U.S. can do no wrong. For them, the reading of this book can be a shock. For others, it could be an awakening to what has been going on under the radar for quite some time, but was hardly reported and analyzed by the media, i.e. that the U.S. is becoming more and more like its radical Islamist enemies: delusionarily religious, aggressively militaristic, insensitive to human suffering imposed on civilians and, above all, imperialistic and anti-democratic. -This Bush 'revolution' should be discussed in every classrom in America and 'The New American Empire' should be required reading.
Guest More than 1 year ago
There is no doubt that this is an important book. The author analyses the current situation in the U.S. and in the world in a very cogent manner. He presents the complex picture of the American political process as it favors an unhealthy and undemocratic move towards world hegemony through military intervention. Dr. Tremblay, a distinguished professor of economics and finance, gives a clear and just account of many issues relating to the much-discussed topic of 'empire', i.e. the security of energy supplies, the relative economic size of nations, the military-industrial complex in the U.S., the 'Just War' theory as it related to the War in Iraq, the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the place of religion in politics and as a support to terrorism...etc. This is a major book that should be read by all students who want to understand how U.S. foreign policy is formulated and who want to reflect upon the place of America in the world and within Western civilization. It is impossible to remain indifferent after reading such a book. Recommended.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Here is a book that dares call 'a spade, a spade'. Under George W. Bush, the U.S. is a militarist and supremacist country. It has the largest military budget in the world; it initiates wars of aggression and it shows no respect for international law. Americans may fill the churches as much as they like, religious hypocrisy won't erase an immoral reality. We have soldiers who kill and maim women and children, and who use torture against prisoners, all because we want to fill our huge SUV's with cheap gas. One sincerely hopes that the saying 'He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword' never applies to us. Indeed, with George W. Bush, the United States now has a '19th Century Presidency'. It is an imperial and supremacist presidency that attempts to dominate other peoples through military invasion and occupation under the hypocritical pretext of 'liberating' them (from their lands and from their resources!). Just as in the Philippines in 1900, Mexico in 1913, South Vietnam in 1961, or Iraq today, American imperialism is not being expanded to foster democracy and peace, but to plunder other peoples' resources and to wage intimidating wars in favor of capitalism¿savage wars conducted in direct opposition to the U.S. commitment to Western civilization and democracy. In the past, American imperial wars all ended in disasters. For instance, the war in the Philippines dragged on for 14 years (1898-1912). Before it ended, about 120,000 U.S. troops were deployed, more than 4,000 were killed, and more than 200,000 Filipino civilians and soldiers were killed. When U.S. troops invaded Mexico in 1913, they were not met as 'liberators' but with chants of ¿Death to the Gringos¿ and they fostered resentment still palpable today. In Vietnam, from 1961 to 1973, the same imperial misadventure resulted in 58,000 young Americans and one million Vietnamese losing their lives. Now, the same imperial mindset is at work in Washington D.C., notwithstanding the disasters it has created in the past. The neocons in power still promote the discredited idea that democracy and capitalism can be force-fed on other peoples through killing and destruction. As history teaches us, such heavy-handed intervention is destined to fail. Again, as in the past, the most unconditional proponents of 'the new imperialism' are the evangelical 'born-again' Christians who salivate at the thought of using force to invade other nations in order to transform them into followers of American values and religious beliefs. The pro-Israel neocons find these modern-day missionaries convenient allies in their plans for imperial wars. This is a most disturbing and anti-democratic development that everyone should oppose. This book, 'The New American Empire' gives all the reasons why this 'new imperialism' is as destructive as the 'old imperialism' of the past. It should be required reading. Every American should read this book, especially those who voted for G.W. Bush in 2004.
Guest More than 1 year ago
In The New American Empire, economist and professor emeritus Rodrigue Tremblay dares to ask: what is really the motive behind the American war in Iraq? What will be its consequences, both for the United States and the world? Focusing on a critical shift that American foreign and domestic policies have taken under George Bush since September 11, 2001, viewed both in the context of modern history and as part of the evolution of Western civilization since the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The dangerous implications of a war initiated and led under false pretenses, the strategic importance of oil and its fundamental motivation in a political and worldwide power grab, emerging decadence in the West and more are all chronicles with a cautious eye and a sharp tongue. A deftly researched, deadly serious warning of the clear and present dangers of America's current uncontrolled national hubris.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Those of us who respect and admire the vision and wisdom of the Fathers of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, are deeply saddened to watch the Bush administration systematically destroying, piece by piece, so many of those principles and ideals that have made the U.S. a great democratic country. We thought we had separation of Church and State; not any more. We thought religious organizations would not use their tax-free dollars to influence election results; not any more. We thought that we were protected by the centuries-old principle of 'Habeas Corpus' from arbitrary imprisonment; not any more. We had a government that abided by international law; not any more. We thought that our army was to protect us, not to engage in aggressive wars of conquest; not any more. We thought that we had a respected democratic republic where the ultimate power rests with the citizens; not any more...etc. So many rights we took for granted are being eroded under our very eyes and we seem to be paralyzed by fear and frozen in torpor, too timid to lift the mantle of lead that neocon Bushies want to impose on us. It takes a book like Dr.Tremblay's to make one realize that freedom does not disappear in a big scoop, but is rather eroded slowly by a host of government measures that lead to the same ultimate result. 'The New American Empire' gives all the reasons why imperialism is a danger to freedom. The book is a well-informed and thoughtful assessment of a contemporary political phenomenon. -I hope every American would read this book.