Why Clinton's Proposed Iraq Attack Is A Reckless And Dangerous Venture
Cicero
Traditionally democracies do not start wars but commit
themselves to hostilities only in self-defense and to repel
aggression. This was true for America's entry in both World
Wars, Korea and Viet Nam. The Gulf war of 1991 was actually
started by Saddam Hussein with his invasion of Kuwait. America's
belligerent response in all of these wars was justified.
However, if Clinton's threatened war against Iraq is carried out,
with a wealthy superpower's attacking an impoverished Third
World country, the U.S. will be perceived as the aggressor and villain.
Furthermore, it could result in a resurgence of Arab and Islamic
terrorism against civilian Americans around the world for years to
come. And the terrorism would not be limited to American targets,
but also Canadian, British and Australian, the only other nations to
be supporting Clinton's misconceived and reckless adventure.
Last week when Clinton sent Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright,
Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, and National Security Advisor,
Berger to Ohio State University to shill for his war, the result was
disastrous. Televised around the globe by CNN, and watched in all the
Arab and Islamic nations, even in Saddam's Bagdad, the town hall
fiasco impressed on all viewers how wrongheaded and evil Clinton's
planned
attack is.
The Clinton White House ironically and cynically selected
Columbus Ohio for its propaganda ploy because of its known
conservative, patriotic and Republican population, one that could
be expected to support Old Glory in any kind of conflict. But the
hecklers' chant
of "One, two, three, four we don't want your racist war" pretty well
drowned out anything the three Clinton cabinet lackeys had to say.
Also the suspicion that Albright, Cohen and Berger are all of Jewish
background, and the Clinton administration has a preponderance of Jewish
people serving in it generally, would not be lost on the the Arab and
Islamic
peoples who no doubt perceive the threatened attack on Arab Iraq as an
American Jewish and Israeli conspiracy. The hecklers were wrong, of
course,
in referring to the impeding war as "racist" in that most Americans are
caucasian, the
same race as the Arabs. The Jews are even closer to the Arabs
as both peoples are semitic. However, the war would still be seen as an
attack by
the rich wealthy Western superpower against a poor Third World Moslem
nation.
The pro-Clinton and jingoist Jewish comments of Dr. Lewinsky and
Monica's Jewish
lawyer, William Ginsberg, would also not be lost on Arabs and Moslems
around the
world. Many of them already, rightly or wrong suspect, that Clinton and
his
Jewish-dominated White House are using this proposed attack on Saddam
Hussein's as a diversion from his alleged sexual,
perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation
and witness tampering involvements being investigated by Judge Kenneth
Starr.
In no way should the above comments be conceived as anti-semitic. Many
conservative Jews have served America and Western democratic interests
well in the past.
In the Reagan administration there were people like secretary of
defence
Caspar Winegberger and deputy defence minister Richard Perle who made
outstanding
contributions during the Cold War. Also Henry Kissinger during
the Nixon administration was a exceptional secretary of state. But the
so-called
Hollywood, radical- liberal Jews that have become so influential in the
Clinton
administration are having a detrimental effect on both American foreign
and domestic policy.
Another problem for the American taxpayer , who has
already given billions of dollars to Israel (and Egypt since Jimmy
Carter's
Camp David accord) of Clinton's proposed war
is the cost of the undertaking. The Gulf War of 1991 cost
a staggering $60 billion. But most of the tab was picked up by Japan,
Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and other Gulf states. That isn't going to happen this time. The
American
taxpayer, already spending $4 billion a year in Bosnia, will have to
absorb all the costs.