Happy 911 America Death Day from Snosoft

[dotslash () snosoft com (KF)]

Hahah nice spoof dick nose.
-KF


KF wrote:

> Who's Afraid of Iraq?
> by Gary Leupp
>
> "Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein 
> is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use 
> it against Israel." 
>
> Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, CNN military consultant, in a Guardian interview (Aug. 20)
>
> Now there's a quotation to ponder. President Bush has said on a number of occasions that Saddam Hussein "must not be 
> allowed to threaten the U.S. and its friends and allies" (plural) with weapons of mass destruction. This is the 
> official, public justification for war on Iraq.
>
> But what does the statement mean, exactly? In February the CIA declared that it had no evidence for any Iraqi 
> terrorist attacks on Americans since the Bush I assassination attempt in Kuwait in 1993, and never any on U.S. soil. 
> Saddam's missiles can't come close to the U.S. They can reach Moscow, but the Russians aren't concerned; they're 
> signing a $ 40 billion economic and trade cooperation package with Iraq. Iraq's missiles can reach Sicily, but the 
> Europeans aren't concerned; they firmly oppose U.S. war plans. Iraq's neighbors, including U.S. friends Turkey, Egypt, 
> Jordan, Saudi Arabia, even Kuwait, say they don't feel threatened by Iraq and also oppose a war. Emphatically. Only 
> Israel's Prime Minister Sharon is egging Washington on. So, taking our cue from plain-talking soldier Clark (who has 
> taken the trouble to write an editorial for the London Times urging a cautious approach to war with Iraq), we can 
> fairly restate Bush's declaration cited above as follows: "The U.S. !
> must not allow Saddam Hussein to ever, ever threaten our friend Israel with weapons of mass destruction." Israel, that 
> is to say, constitutes a unique category in Bushite geopolitical thinking, as the nation that must never, ever have to 
> factor into its defense strategy the existence of WMDs held by any hostile nation. The 22 Arab nations, meanwhile, 
> constitute another distinct set: these are nations that must never, ever acquire WMDs, especially nukes, because Arabs 
> might use them against Israel. (Whether or not such thinking is reasonable and valid, it's best to just state it 
> honestly, lest we abominate our lips with Bush-like incoherence or Rumsfeld-like doublespeak. See Proverbs 8:7).
>
> Israel is obviously concerned about Iraq's weapons programs. In June 1981 it bombed and destroyed the Osiraq nuclear 
> reactor in Iraq, which the French had taken a lot of trouble to build, saying Iraq was five to ten years away from 
> acquiring nuclear weapons. The action was illegal, of course, condemned by the UN and even (mildly) by the U.S. The 
> concern of the settler state was not entirely unrealistic; ten years later, during the Gulf War, Iraq lobbed Scuds at 
> it. But as everyone knows, Israel is itself an (undeclared) nuclear power, and its nukes similarly cause concern 
> throughout the region. (It's interesting to note, though, that while the U.S. cut off aid to both Pakistan and India 
> after they joined the nuclear club, Israel didn't even get a slap on the wrist when it went nuclear, ca. 1973). In any 
> case, Israel, as it showed by the Osiraq attack, can probably take care of itself, just like Pakistan can take care of 
> itself vis-à-vis India, India vis-à-vis China, China vi!
> s-à-vis Russia, etc. The chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces himself, Moshe Ya'alon, recently told Ha'aretz 
> that "In the long term, the threat of Iraq or Hezbollah doesn't make me lose sleep." 
>
> For obvious reasons, there is a great deal of hostility towards the Jewish state in the Arab world. Egypt and Jordan 
> have recognized Israel, and have trade and diplomatic relations, but then, they are U.S. client states (Egypt 
> receiving $ 2 billion a year in U.S. aid), and even in them, in what Colin Powell calls "the Arab street," there is 
> outrage towards the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories. As the largest, most populous, most 
> "modernized" Arab nation in Southwest Asia that is not a U.S. ally or client state, Iraq could, especially in the 
> absence of a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem, pose a challenge to Israel even under a leader far kinder and 
> gentler than Saddam Hussein. 
>
> One can easily imagine even a "democratically elected" leader in a secular government in Baghdad thinking, "Israel has 
> nukes. Russia, to our north, has nukes. So do China, Pakistan, and India. Our unfriendly neighbor Iran has a nuclear 
> program. Don't I owe it to my people to acquire them for our defense-indeed, for the defense of the entire Arab 
> nation?" "Democratically elected" leaders of India have for years felt that obtaining nukes was a reasonable 
> enterprise. Turns out that successive Australian governments have been pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and that 
> Argentina has sought one. Is it satanic for technically advanced nations to want to follow in the footsteps of the 
> U.S., U.S.S.R., Britain, France and China---or merely normal? 
>
> It seems as though some very powerful people in Washington think the only way to prevent Iraq from eventually 
> following the course of these other normal nations, and acquiring nukes that could some day be targeted at Israel 
> (just as Israel has nukes targeted at Iraq), is for the U.S. to occupy Iraq and create a new government that will play 
> ball like those in Egypt and Jordan. They've been urging an attack on Iraq for years, long before Sept. 11 gave them 
> an opportunity to push their agenda (through crude attempts to link Iraq with al-Qaeda-which continue through reports 
> citing unnamed government sources, citing classified reports that strain one's credulity). But (as Madeleine Albright 
> has recently stated) the issue is not really U.S. security. Nor is it the security of other Arab nations, and surely 
> (from the U.S. government's point of view) not that of the biggest victim of Iraqi aggression, Iran (lumped into the 
> "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq, and also targeted for "regi!
> me change"). Rather, it's the enhancement, to the nth degree, of the security of an Israel already armed to the teeth 
> and capable of nuking Iraq or Syria or lots of other places, big-time. It's what Scott Ritter has called the 
> "ideological" motivation for an Iraq attack.
>
> I'm not saying that the proponents of the forthcoming Iraq War aren't also thinking about oil, and a range of other 
> geopolitical issues. I'm simply observing that defense of "our friends" in official statements really means defense of 
> Israel, through the establishment of a kind of "no-fly zone" from the Khyber Pass to the Jordan River, making Israel 
> absolutely safe from Muslim neighbors who presently resent its (nuclear) existence. But is it rational and moral to 
> send American troops to create that imagined sea of tranquility, establishing client-states which, Egypt-like, trade 
> acceptance of the Zionist project for massive infusions of Marshall Plan-type U.S. aid? Is the project feasible, the 
> goal just, the method even legal? Is it really likely even to enhance the security of Israeli Jews, Israeli 
> Palestinians, and Palestinians in the occupied territories? Personally, I don't think so. I think it's a recipe for 
> apocalyptic blowback. You want more terrorists? Follow the reci!
> pe. 
>
> "We're all members of the Likud now," a (Democratic) U.S. senator told a visiting Israeli politician in Washington. 
> That's very scary. It's scary when a U.S. Congressional delegation visits Ariel Sharon at the height of his invasion 
> of the West Bank, officially opposed by the Bush administration, to assure him that he has their full support; or when 
> House Republican Leader Dick Armey cheerfully tells Chris Matthews on CNN's Hardball, "I'm content to have Israel grab 
> the entire West Bank" and that the Palestinians should just get out of there. When Defense Secretary Rumsfeld opines 
> to a Pentagon audience that Israel's "so-called territories" are really legitimate spoils of war, or when a RAND 
> researcher at the Pentagon calls Saudi Arabia the "kernel of evil" and advocates the creation of a U.S.-sponsored oil 
> state in Eastern Arabia, one has to feel scared. Scared about the rage, not just on the Arab street, but on the global 
> street, that the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz plan for the wo!
> rld is likely to generate towards even decent, honest, peace-loving Americans (who are already, in their foreign 
> travels, finding it convenient to impersonate Canadians). The craziness may be spinning out of control. 
>
> Steering the hijacked ship of state, energized by an ideology as threatening to world peace as the doctrines of the 
> Taliban, are a cabal of men and women who are prepared to provoke the Muslim world (no, the entire world) by actions 
> that even senior Republicans like Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger and Brent Snowcroft seem to consider unwise. 
> What to call the members of this warmongering cabal? If we're talking about "Islamist extremists," how should we label 
> these folks? "Judeo-Christianist-Zionist fundamentalist imperialist extremists"? Nah, that's too many "---ists." So I 
> propose just "crazies," who unfortunately, by some random (just possibly reversible) fluke of our planetary history, 
> have acquired the ability to threaten the whole human race, your friends and mine---Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, 
> Buddhists, atheists and everybody else----with weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Gary Leupp is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts University and coordinator, Asian Studies 
> Program.
>
> He can be reached at: gleupp () tufts edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html