Yep,
Just did a quick run down of our logs and IDS reports. This was in
fact a spoof. I give them credit for the excitement!! =o) On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 19:41, KF wrote: > 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-�-vis India, India vis-�-vis China, China v! > i! > >s-�-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 "reg! > i! > >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 rec! > i! > >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 w! > o! > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > >Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html > -- -ATD- ------------------------------------------------------------- Secure Network Operations | Strategic Reconnaissance Team http://www.snosoft.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cerebrum Project | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
