The U.S. MUST Strike at Sharon

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Our Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Catch of the day ( on January 03, 2002 at 22:49:06:

This is snap shot on how the Zionist Mafia works. There have been thousands of articles, TV programs, Think Tanks reports, Zionist from all over the world, demanding, and justifying the bombing of Iraq, using not only Zionist Jews like M. Zukerman,
K. Edelman, and W. Safire, but even bought out Iraqis, and none Iraqis.
Some of them are so filled with hate they call for bombing Iraq, its infrastructure, and occupying its land, most are sophisticated, and politically correct and they call it striking Saddam, and we have seen before what that means.
Here is just one example, in this one Richard Perle demands that the US MUST strike, MUST no Ifs, or Buts.
He use few of those sneaky Zionist tricks.
- He remind Bush Jr. that Saddam tried to kill his FATHER, to make it personal to Bush son, as if his father did not try to kill Saddam.
- He wants the US again to kiss Israel Butt because of Israel terroristic act of bombing the civilian Iraqi nuclear reactor. As if Israel has no military reactor with hundred of N- bombs.
- He cries for Halabja, and call its people who stabbed Iraq in the back during the war with Iran, and helped the Iranian army penetrate Iraq boarders, and attack the Iraqi army from the back, he calls them "Saddam's own people". If that was the case then why did Israel kidnap Mordochi Vanono from Europe, and throw him in Israeli Jail when he did much less than what the traitors of Halabja did ? Isn't Vanono Israel own people ? How about John Walker, the American Talban, is he Bush own people, or is he a traitor, although he never attacked American soil.
What Saddam did to Halabja is criminal regardless of the reason, but If Perle cares about the people of Halabja, how about the rest of the Iraqi people, and their life line infrastructure which Perle is demanding to be bombed ?
If we use Richard Perle logic against Iraq, and apply it to Israel, then the title should read :
"The U.S. Must Strike at Sharon"
Israel has invaded, and still occupy another country, it use F16 to bomb civilians under its control, it has WMD, its Mossaad has done many terroristics acts, and assassinations, it has worked with the drug cartel of South America, and armed them, it sells arms to Iran, China, it killed American sailors and ship, it has assassinated Palestinian leaders, even in Tunisia and Lebanon, it has shot a civilian Libyan plane, its leaders, including Bigen, and Sharon has known terroristic, and criminal history.....
Do you think any Democratic US media, yet alone the NY Times, would ever publish an article titled :
"The U.S. Must Strike at Sharon" ?

(2001/12/31): "The U.S. Must Strike at Saddam Hussein"

New York Times
December 28, 2001

The U.S. Must Strike at Saddam Hussein

WASHINGTON -- Within hours of the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush said,
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these
acts and those who harbor them." From that first statement, Mr. Bush
shaped a grand strategy for the war on terrorism that is as transforming
of American policy as was Ronald Reagan's pledge to consign an "evil
empire" to the "ash heap of history." It breaks with the past by taking
aim at states harboring terrorists as well as at terrorists themselves.
It is why we have destroyed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan even as we
hunt down Osama bin Laden himself. It is why the war against terrorism
cannot be won if Saddam Hussein continues to rule Iraq.

Three things about Saddam Hussein make the destruction of his regime
essential to the war against terrorism

First, like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein hates the United States with
a vengeance he expresses at every opportunity. It is hatred intensified
by a tribal culture of the blood feud - one that he has embraced since
Mr. Bush's father defeated him on the field of battle.

Second, Saddam Hussein has an array of chemical and biological weapons
and has been willing to absorb the pain of a decade-long embargo rather
than allow international inspectors to uncover the full magnitude of his
program. The expulsion of inspectors from Iraq three years ago has
rendered future inspections worthless; everything that could be
relocated has been moved and hidden in mosques, schools, hospitals,
farms, private homes. These programs - now involving dozens, perhaps
hundreds, of clandestine sites - will prove even more difficult to find
than Osama bin Laden.

Alone among heads of state, he has actually used chemical weapons
against his own people, killing thousands of unarmed citizens in
northern Iraq. We know that he has produced quantities of anthrax
sufficient to kill millions of people, as well as other biological
agents. Disseminated to would-be martyrs from Al Qaeda, Hezbollah,
Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein's
biological arsenal could kill very large numbers of Americans.

With each passing day, he comes closer to his dream of a nuclear
arsenal. We know he has a clandestine program, spread over many hidden
sites, to enrich Iraqi natural uranium to weapons grade. We know he has
the designs and the technical staff to fabricate nuclear weapons once he
obtains the material. And intelligence sources know he is in the market,
with plenty of money, for both weapons material and components as well
as finished nuclear weapons. How close is he? We do not know. Two years,
three years, tomorrow even? We simply do not know, and any intelligence
estimate that would cause us to relax would be about as useful as the
ones that missed his nuclear program in the early 1990's or failed to
predict the Indian nuclear test in 1998 or to gain even a hint of the
Sept. 11 attack.

Third, we know that Saddam Hussein has engaged directly in acts of
terror and given sanctuary and other support to terrorists. In 1993 he
planned the assassination of George H. W. Bush during the former
president's visit to Kuwait. He operates a terrorist training facility
at Salman Pak complete with a passenger aircraft cabin for training in

His collaboration with terrorists is well documented. Evidence of a
meeting in Prague between a senior Iraqi intelligence agent and Mohamed
Atta, the Sept. 11 ringleader, is convincing. More important is his
long, continuing collaboration with a number of terrorist groups, some
of whose leaders live in and operate from Iraq. He openly, defiantly
pays the families of suicide bombers and praises the attacks on Sept.
11. If anyone fits the profile of support for terror, it is Saddam

Saddam Hussein's removal from office, we are told privately, would be
cheered in the Persian Gulf. The conventional wisdom that an attack on
him would be seen as an attack against Islam is an insult to Islam, and
it is wrong. To most Muslims, his reign of terror is an abomination. In
Iraq itself, his downfall would be met with dancing in the streets. A
decent successor regime would be very likely to encourage peace in the

The charter of the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella group of Saddam
Hussein's opponents, calls for eradicating weapons of mass destruction
and renouncing terrorism. Those opponents need our political and
financial support today, and when the time is ripe, they will need our
precision air power.

In 1981 the Israelis faced an urgent choice: Should they allow Saddam
Hussein to fuel a French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad - or destroy
it? Once fuel was placed in the reactor, it could not be bombed without
releasing lethal radioactive material. Allowing the fueling to go
forward meant that the Baghdad regime could eventually get the plutonium
to build a nuclear weapon. The Israelis decided to strike pre-emptively,
before it was too late: in a spectacular display of precision bombing,
the reactor at Osirak was destroyed.

Everything we know about Saddam Hussein forces President Bush to make a
similar choice: to take pre-emptive action or wait, possibly until it is
too late. We waited too long before acting broadly against terrorism. We
were too late to save the victims of Sept. 11. We should have taken
terrorism seriously three years ago, when our embassies in East Africa
were destroyed. To leave Saddam Hussein in place and hope for the best
would repeat that mistake. And narrowing the war against terror to
exclude his regime would drain a bold and courageous policy of its great
and vital strength.

Richard Perle, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was
assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1987.


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Our Forum ] [ FAQ ]