This letter was written by people with a clear understanding of the enemy
that we face.
Yes, the war on terror does greatly benfit Israel.  That is because these
terrorist nations hate Jews more than they hate Americans.  Not by much, but
more.
Unfortunately this hatred for Jews (and Christians) is alive and well on
this list.  Perhaps one of the reasons the anti-semite crowd on the list is
so much against the U.S. in this war is because they would like to see the
Jews eradicated.

jm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wirt Atmar" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Who's Next? (was: too quiet)


> Jerry writes:
>
> > : Is it just me, or is the list just very quiet today????
> >
> >  It might have something to do with income taxes, or seeing which
> >  country the U.S. goes after next:
> >
> >    o Syria
> >    o Iran
> >    o North Korea
> >    o Cuba (google for "+cuba +biotechnology +terrorism")
>
> In this case, you don't have to speculate. The blueprint for who to
attack,
> and in what order, has been written out for nearly a decade. During the
> 1990's a new group of Republicans, calling themselves "neoconservatives",
> have worked out the order of attack in some detail.
>
> Having this plan well in hand allowed them to write a open letter to the
> President just days after September 11th. That letter appears at:
>
>      http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document092101b.shtml
>
> In it, they say:
>
> AFGHANISTAN FIRST:
>
> "We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current
war
> on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy
his
> network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military
action
> in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military
> assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country...
>
> IRAQ SECOND:
>
> "It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to
the
> recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link
Iraq
> directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of
terrorism
> and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein
> from power in Iraq...
>
> SYRIA & IRAN THIRD:
>
> "Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe
the
> administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all
> military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its
operations.
> Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider
> appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of
> terrorism...
>
> THE PLA FOURTH:
>
> "Israel has been and remains America's staunchest ally against
international
> terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully
> support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should
insist
> that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from
> territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist
attacks
> against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the
> United States should provide it no further assistance.
>
> US DEFENSE BUDGET*:
>
> "A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase
in
> defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to
> engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of
> defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no
> hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us
to
> win this war."
>
> *As a small note, the US Defense Budget already outstrips the next 20
largest
> national defense budgets combined, and has been that way for nearly a
decade
> now. The US however, as has been previously mentioned on the list, is also
> the stingiest of the industrialized nations in its contributions to
foreign
> aid.
>
> Approximately half of the signatories to the letter are among the most
> hawkish Jewish-American Republicans. A remaining quarter of the list are
very
> conservative Christians, almost all of whom subscribe to the "End of Days"
> philosophy, people who Pat Buchanan inelegantly calls the "Amen Chorus."
In
> this strange Christian scenario, the return of Jesus is foretold by the
Jews
> reclaiming all of Israel. Unfortunately, in Act IV of this five-act play,
the
> Jews are vaporized, except for those very few who have come to accept
Jesus
> Christ as their personal Savior. There are a great many Israelis who think
> that their government is nuts for having anything to do with these people,
> but at the moment, allies of the Israeli government's actions are hard to
> come by, and they will apparently will accept anyone they can, grasping at
> straws as they are.
>
> In that regard, Richard Perle, one of the signatories to the letter,
recently
> (Feb. 23, 2003) said:
>
> "Well, first of all, the answer is absolutely yes [to the question, is the
> war in Iraq about Israel?]. Those of us who believe that we should take
this
> action if Saddam doesn't disarm--and I doubt that he's going to--believe
it's
> in the best interests of the United States. I don't see what would be
wrong
> with surrounding Israel with democracies."
>
>      --http://www.msnbc.com/news/876263.asp
>
> Although that letter was written just eight days after September 11th, it
was
> made the basis of a new National Security Strategy in the summer of 2002,
a
> document written by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice:
>
>      http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html
>
> In it, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice write:
>
> "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients
before
> they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the
> United States and our allies and friends...
>
> "For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer
an
> attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against
> forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and
> international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on
the
> existence of an imminent threat--most often a visible mobilization of
armies,
> navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
>
> We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and
> objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek
to
> attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail.
> Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons
of
> mass destruction--weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered
covertly,
> and used without warning...
>
> "The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to
> counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the
threat,
> the greater is the risk of inaction--and the more compelling the case for
> taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty
remains
> as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent
such
> hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
> preemptively."
>
> Ominously, just today, Ari Feischer, White House spokesman, said: "'Syria
is
> indeed a rogue nation.''
>
> A surprising number of people on this list bought into the nonsense that
the
> White House was peddling prior to the pre-emptive attack on Iraq, that it
had
> weapons of mass destruction, with missiles capable of reaching the United
> States. But it was always clear that Iraq did not have:
>
>      o weapons of mass destruction
>      o an army sufficient to be a threat to any of its neighbors
>      o any sort of long-range missile capability
>      o nor was it home base to any terrorist activity
>
> If you listen carefully to the news for the next several weeks, you're
going
> to start hearing the same shrill nonsense be said about Syria and Iran.
> Ideally, you won't be nearly so prone to buy into this second or third
time.
>
> I truly wonder if Florida would have gone so overwhelmingly for GW Bush if
> they had known in advance that this agenda is what they were voting for.
>
> Wirt Atmar
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *