| Iraq Threatens Israel By Antonio C. Abaya February 21, 2003 But Iraq does not threaten the rest of the world. It is not a threat to the US. It is not a threat to the United Kingdom or to Europe. It is definitely not a threat to Asia, Africa, North and South America, or Australia. That is the reason why eight million people in more than 600 cities worldwide joined anti-war demonstrations over the weekend of Feb.15-16. They do not feel threatened by Iraq. How many warmongers demonstrated because they felt threatened by Iraq? The defining measure of that threat is the capability of Iraq to lob its weapons of mass destruction, assuming that it has them, across oceans and international boundaries. It simply does not have that capability. In my article �War for Oil and Israel� of Jan. 30, 2003, I referred to �an unnoticed � unnoticed even by CNN, the BBC and the columnists of The New York Times and The Washington Post � portion of the Blix Report (of Jan. 27) (which) read: �The Al Samoud missile�s diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760mm�.despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600mm�� �The Blix inspectors interpreted this unauthorized widening as an attempt to fit in a nuclear warhead. I disagree�..Increasing the missile�s diameter by 160mm or 27% would increase the volume of the tube by 60%, assuming a constant length. Increasing that length by only 25% would increase the volume by 101%, enough room for a bigger fuel tank that would increase the range of the missile beyond the 150-km limit and propel it across the River Jordan to hit Tel Aviv, Haifa and other targets in Israel�. �There is no doubt that US, British and Israeli analysts are aware of the significance of this unpublicized development. That may be the reason why Israel announced last December that it had developed and deployed its Arrow anti-missile missile, claimed to be more effective than the US� Patriot, which had failed to stop more than 20 Iraqi Scuds from hitting Israel in 1991. The Israeli message to Saddam seems to be: �we know what you have, but we can shoot it down.� �This may, however, be a case of whistling in the dark. The Israelis claim that all they need are five minutes to detect and track an incoming Iraqi Samoud and fire an Arrow to destroy it, versus the eight minutes it would take that Samoud to reach Israel. But this is living on the edge. No society can long endure knowing that its margin for error is a maximum of only three minutes, just long enough to boil an egg�. �Bush is right. Time is running out. But time is running out on Israel�..� ***** This column is regularly emailed to all the major foreign embassies in Metro Manila as well as to all international media organizations with offices here. In addition, this particular article was emailed/forwarded to major newspapers in New York, Washington, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and Hong Kong. Whether by coincidence or not, Reuters (whose Manila office explicitly acknowledged receipt of my Jan. 30 article) reported on Feb 12 that �the UN Security Council (had) set an allowable range of 150 kms (90 miles) for Iraqi missiles. The engines of the Al Samoud 2 rocket repeatedly tested up to 40 kms (24 miles) beyond that range, the experts concluded�..� And the website bbcnews.com reported on Feb 13 that �(UN experts) have confirmed that (Al Samoud) does indeed exceed the limits set by the UN Security Council. The fact that it has a larger than permitted diameter and that it may also have an engine derived from a surface-to-air missile are two further facts that contravene UN restrictions. Both of these facts suggest that the missile could be intended to have an even longer range, since it could carry additional fuel and could perhaps be fitted with an even more powerful motor�..� On Feb 21, Dr. Hans Blix wrote the Iraqi Government to start destroying their Al-Samoud missiles by March 1. So my Jan. 30 deduction, focused on the largely unnoticed increase in the missile�s diameter, was correct and precise. Time is running out on Israel because Iraq has developed, or is about to develop, missiles with range enough to hit Israel. And Israel�s present three-minute margin for error will soon be reduced to only seconds, if that much, a condition totally unacceptable to the Israelis, as well as to the Jewish Lobby and the sappy Christian fundamentalists of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (who believe that the state of Israel is a creation of God and must be defended at all cost) whose political support George W. Bush courts for his re-election in 2004. That is why Bush is �chafing at the bit and cannot be restrained from galloping into Armageddon,� even though even a stretched and souped-up Samoud missile, with a range of 300-350 kms, cannot hit London (which is about 5,200 kms away) or New York (about 12,700 kms away). But the rest of the world outside official Washington, including tens of millions of Americans and Britons, do not share Bush�s over-riding though unstated concern for the safety of the six million Jews of Israel and do not equate the security of Israel with the security of the US, Europe and the rest of the world. No public figure in the West will state the crux of the problem in these terms because any criticism of Israel is automatically dismissed as anti-Semitism, an unmentionable and unforgivable taboo, like incest or the eating of pet dogs. But being nether American nor European (nor Muslim), and being generally pro-American and pro-Israeli, and being long an admirer of the Jewish people, I can state with detachment and objectivity that only the state of Israel (and the collaborationist state of Kuwait) are genuinely threatened by Iraq. Iraq�s other neighbors (Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Iran and Saudi Arabia) have categorically stated that they do not want any war with Iraq and that such a war would destabilize the entire region. When Bush says Iraq is a threat to its neighbors and the entire world, he really means Iraq is a threat to Israel (and Kuwait). Since when was Israel (and Kuwait) equivalent to the rest of the world? ***** Just who really is a threat to world peace was settled by no less than TIME magazine, according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof in his column which appeared in the Feb. 1 issue of Today. Wrote Kristof: �The European edition of TIME magazine has been conducting a poll on its website on �Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?� With 318,000 votes cast so far, the responses are: North Korea, 7%: Iraq, 8%; the United States, 84%�.� In the meantime, even after CIA Director George Tenet confirmed on Feb 12 what he first told the US Congress in 1999, that North Korea had developed (but had not yet test-fired) a three-stage version of the Taepodong 2 missile that could soon hit the US West Coast �and even some distance inland,� George W. Bush has not labeled North Korea a �threat to its neighbors and the entire world,� has not sent five carrier battle groups to Korean waters, has not demanded a regime change in Pyongyang, has not rushed 200,000 troops to South Korea, has not warned Kim Jong Il �to disarm or be disarmed by force,� has not pronounced that �time is running out on Kim,� and has not wound up his Tony Blair doll to say the same things. Why not, given that he has done exactly those vis-�-vis Saddam Hussein and Iraq, with their puny 150-km range Al-Samoud missiles? I can find only two reasons: a) there is not a drop of oil in North (and South) Korea; and b) the six million Jews of Israel are not threatened by Kim, as they are by Saddam. ***** Part of this article appears in the March 8, 2003 issue of the Philippines Free Press magazine. |
 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Iraq Threatens Israel� THANK YOU again for this truthful article. Have you received any hate mail from the Jews yet? Peter J. Ritter. [email protected]. Manila February 26, 2003 MY REPLY. Read the reactions to this article and to the other article, War for Oil and Israel, and decide for yourself which, if any, came from Jews. ����������������������������� READ A LITTLE history, dear fellow. Did not Iraq fire Scud missiles at Israel in 1991? What you said is absurd. Sure, Germany did not threaten the world in 1936, 38, 39, 41. It simply invaded when the aggressor thought it propitious. Dis Japan make any threats in 1941? It just make a sneak attack. Ross Tipon. [email protected] Baguio City February 26, 2003 MY REPLY. Read some current events, my dear fellow. You have a computer; use it to educate yourself. The Internet is full of often minutely detailed information, much of it from American (and therefore, to you, infallible) sources. When I say that Iraq threatens Israel, I mean that its mere possession of certain weapons and its possession of delivery missiles that can reach Israel make Iraq a threat to Israel, without it having to make a public announcement of that threat. Similarly, when your beloved President Bush says that �Iraq is a threat to the US and to the rest of the world,� he also means that mere possession of those weapons makes Iraq a threat to the US and the rest of the world, without Iraq having to announce that it threatens both. His problem, as well as yours, is that he and you cannot show that Iraq has the weapons delivery systems that can lob those weapons 12,000 kms across the oceans to New York. Your argument, therefore, about Nazi Germany and Japan is totally illogical. Dummy. You should also check your spelling and grammar before posting. Otherwise you might not qualify for an American green card. ������������������������������ VERY ENLIGHTENING and likely, Tony! Richard Powell. (email address on file). Makati City February 26, 2003 �������������������������������� (Through the CebuPolitics egroup) DO I UNDERSTAND correctly that, in your opinion, the US is gunning for iraq primarily because it is a threat to israel? and again, do i understand it correctly that you are suggesting in your article below that the US should do nothing to counter this threat? is israel's safety any less important than other nations'? Eben Ramos. [email protected] Cebu City February 27, 2003 MY REPLY. In my opinion, the US is gunning AFTER Iraq partly to control its oil, and partly because Iraq is a threat to Israel. Contrary to what President Bush says repeatedly, Iraq is not a threat to the US or to the rest of the world, for the simple reason that Iraq does not have the missiles that can travel the 12,000 kms to New York, or the 5,500 kms to London, even assuming that it has bio/chem or nuclear weapons. Since the state being threatened by Iraq is Israel, Israel should be the one to bomb and invade Iraq and to assassinate Saddam Hussein and effect a regime change in Baghdad. But Israel does not have the capability to do so? Well, that�s too bad. It should then do the next best thing, which is to stop persecuting and humiliating the Palestinians, which is the principal reason for Iraq�s belligerence towards Israel, and is also one of two principal reasons for Osama bin Laden�s attack on the World Trade Center (the other being the stationing of thousands of US troops on Saudi soil, which Osama claims is a desecration of land sacred to Islam). By assuming the dirty work that is rightfully the burden of Ariel Sharon and his alone, George W. Bush invites Muslim retaliation against Americans and American interests all over the world, which means that practically all countries can become the setting of suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism against Americans and their interests, even countries that have nothing to do with the problems of Americans, Muslims and Jews. By taking up the cudgels for Israel, the US gives a carte blanche to Sharon and his Nazi government to continue their persecution and humiliation of the Palestinians, which in turn stokes more Muslim hatred against Israel and the US, which translates into more acts of terrorism against Americans and American interests, etc. The spiral of violence will not end with a US invasion and occupation of Iraq. For the Philippines in particular, an American war on Iraq will cause the price of oil and oil products to shoot up and wreck the national economy; it will displace hundreds of thousands of Filipino OCWs in the Middle East, adding to our army of unemployed and reducing the inflow of dollars from the biggest single source of foreign exchange for our import-dependent economy; it will cause the peso to weaken further, thus raising the cost of living for everyone; it will embolden the Muslims in Mindanao to attack not only economic targets (such as power pylons) in the south, but also American targets in Metro Manila. Some of these are already happening even before the invasion has officially begun. I am surprised that you cannot make the connection. It is commendable to be solicitous for the security of other countries to the point of sending troops to those chaotic places � such as Kosovo, Bosnia, etc � in order to restore order, but if such solicitude and armed invasion will cause the suffering of billions of other people, including one�s own, then such solicitude becomes an act of stupidity. ������������������������������ (Through CebuPolitics egroup) THERE IS NO doubt that Iraq is a threat to Israel. This has never been a secret. In your article, you're making it sound like you're having a Eureka moment with this "discovery" when in fact, everyone and his uncle knows that the threat the Iraqi regime poses towards Israel is real. One only has to read Saddam Hussein's past speeches to appreciate this fact. Iraq's support of Hamas - the Palestinian terrorist group that launches regular suicide bombings against Jews - is a clear indication of Saddam Hussein's intentions towards Israel. Iraq's al-Samoud missile is an offensive weapon that can - as you indicated - reach Tel Aviv and kill thousands of Jews (if armed with chemical or biological warheads). (If there is no doubt that Iraq is a threat to Israel, then how come your beloved President Bush does not say �Iraq is a threat to Israel�? He always says �Iraq is a threat to the US and the rest of the world.� He never says �Iraq is a threat to Israel.� He is deliberately equating the security of Israel with the security of the US and the rest of the world, which is a willful act of deception designed to dupe the generally ignorant American masa into supporting his new doctrine of pre-emptive strike, for oil and Israel. You should consider giving him a Eureka moment of discovery. Texas cowboys are not known to have a good grasp of geography beyond the OK Corral. ACA) It is extremely naive, however, to believe that Iraq is a threat to Israel and no one else. For one, Iraq is clearly a threat to the US which is Israel's primary backer. Saddam Hussein has said so, and I don't doubt that he means what he says, do you? As such, American involvement in this conflict is unavoidable. The US has a deep commitment to ensure the survival of Israel, not so much on religious grounds, although I agree that the influence of Christian fundamentalists is having some impact on American strategic thinking. But you are overestimating their influence. (Then who else is Iraq a threat to, aside from collaborationist Kuwait? How can Iraq be a threat to the US when Iraq�s missiles are limited to a range of 150 kms and cannot possibly reach New York, which is more than 12,000 kms from Baghdad? Iraq�s other neighbors � Turkey, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan � are all against a war on Iraq without UN authorization. Apparently they do not feel threatened by Iraq. As for Iraq�s alleged bio/chem weapons, even the CIA and the FBI have expressed the opinion that, assuming Iraq has them, Iraq will not use them except in self-defense, i.e. if and when it is attacked. ACA .) The larger and more important reason for the US to continue to support Israel is based on secular ideological grounds: Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. It is a country where even Arabs/Muslims are given full citizenship status and have the right to vote and be voted into political office. In fact, several current members of the Knesset are Arabs/Muslims, and there are several Arab political parties that participate in governance. The media is not controlled by the state. If you read the Jerusalem Post or Ha'aretz, you will see that these newspapers are vociferously anti-Zionist (especially Ha'aretz). Freedom of religion is also upheld in Israel. Muslims can build mosques there, and the Israeli state will protect their right to do so. Women are also granted full democratic rights. Israel therefore reflects American values. On the other hand, these Arab/Muslim states that gang up on Israel are all totalitarian states and/or theocracies. Jews living in Arab countries like Saudi Arabia or Iraq don't enjoy the same rights that Arabs enjoy in Israel. They are not recognized as citizens, they can't vote in elections, and they can't even worship freely as they desire. The building of synagogues is forbidden in Saudi Arabia. The religious police - the muttawa'in - enforces religious conformity in Saudi Arabia. Israel is an open, democratic society that has provided well for its citizens' material needs, Muslims and Jews alike. Israel is an affluent society that has one of the highest per capita incomes in the Middle East, beating even oil-rich Saudi Arabia. It is true that Israel receives about $4 billion annually in American aid, but then, so does Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, and previously, Saudi Arabia. Even if you eliminate the aid factor, you will see that Israel's economy is the most modern and diversified in the region, with extensive investments in agriculture, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, precious metals, information technology, banking and finance, tourism etc. The Israelis indeed have no oil, but they have made good use of the limited resources that they do have. Just like Singapore and Hongkong (both resource-deficient political entities), Israel is wealthy because its people are disciplined and entrepreneurial, and they have not allowed their handicap (lack of oil) to derail their progress. For these reasons, Israel is worth defending. American defense of Israel is a principled stand. If the US was really just opportunistically interested in maximizing its own benefits, then it would support the Arabs who control all the oil. The US can simply drop its commitment to Israel, which many have considered to be a liability to America. Yet the US continues to back Israel, and for that, I think it deserves to be congratulated. Israel is militarily strong and can probably take care of itself in the event of war, but its major weakness is the numerical inferiority of its population. There are only 6 million Israelis while there are 300 million Arabs. This is not a very encouraging ratio from the point of view of Israel and her friends. Thus, some American support will be necessary. (�Some American support?� You call 250,000 troops, six carrier battle groups, 1,200 combat aircraft and a war budget of from $80 to $100 billion �some American support�? Jesus H. Christ! The last country to which the US extended �some American support� of this magnitude was South Vietnam, and look where that got them. Spare me the lecture on Israel. In general, I am an admirer of Israel and the Jews. See my article Who Owns Manhattan? BUT I draw the line when the physical, material and economic well-being of billions of other people around the world, including my own, will be jeopardized by the reckless adventurism of �a moron� (the words of an aide of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien) and �a president with no foresight, who cannot think properly� (the words of South Africa�s Nelson Mandela. ACA.) Also, why do you assume that a war between Israel and Iraq will be confined to these two parties alone? This is such a naive assumption. When Iraq and Israel start firing missiles at each other, it is a foregone conclusion that other Arab states will eventually join the fray. Israel which has nukes will probably be forced to use its arsenal if it senses that its survival is at stake, especially if Saddam Hussein unleashes his own arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons. Can you blame Israel if it pushes the nuclear button? This exchange will result in a MAJOR bloodbath in the Middle East which will inevitably involve and/or have far-reaching consequences in the US, Europe, Asia, Africa. Thus, whether they like it or not, those 8 million appeaseniks who supposedly demonstrated against war because "Iraq is not a threat" to them will still be dragged into a war that was intially confined to Iraq and Israel. The Bush administration understands all these ramifications and that's why sitting back and watching while Israel and Iraq lunge at each other's throats is not a smart nor realistic option. (Assuming your worst case scenario in which a war between Israel and Iraq is joined by other Arab states and escalates into a nuclear and bio/chem. exchange, why and how will the eight million �appeaseniks� � your term � be dragged into it? Whom will the governments and armed forces of those appeaseniks attack in Europe, non-Muslim Asia, Australia, Russia, Latin America and North America, since they are neither Muslims nor Jews? And who will bomb them for being anti-war? Israel? Aren�t you being carried away by your own rhetoric? (On the other hand, a US attack on and invasion of Iraq, especially if unauthorized by the UN, will draw a swift response from Muslims all over the world. Even the CIA, the FBI and Britain�s MI-6, as well as most strategic thinkers, believe this will happen, even if they disagree on the extent and intensity of this retaliation. Bio/chem warfare and �dirty� radiological bombs are not being ruled out. All countries where there are Americans and American interests will become settings for terrorist attacks. This is a more likely global scenario than your scenario of eight million appeaseniks being dragged into an Iraq-Israel war, for no credible reason at all that you have advanced. ACA.) Janet Issa. [email protected]. February 27, 2003 ������������������������������ ONCE AGAIN I fully share your views in �Iraq Threatens Israel". As I see it Israel is one of the main roots of the problem of Iraq. I certainly don't agree with those Arabs who claim that Israel shouldn't exist - that's a fait accompli - but I insist that Israel must retreat to its pre-1967 borders and allow Palestine to exist free of constant Israeli threats and invasion-occupation. Israel is obsessed with the Iraqi threat (and with reason) but, as you say, this is not a threat to the world. Bush is surrounded with pro-Israeli hawks who are part of the Israeli lobby and they have influenced him, I'm convinced. He was a tabula rasa on this issue before he became President so he was �easy pickins" for them. In fact, he's ignorant in almost every field, both foreign and domestic, and the wild ones on the far right are taking full advantage of this. Kenneth Wright. (email address on file) Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa February 27, 2003 ��������������������������� (Through the CebuPolitics egroup) ABAYA IS saying that as long as Iraq's missiles don't reach Manila, London, or New York, then this concern about the al-Samoud missile and the other weapons in Saddam's aresenal is much ado about nothing. He not too subtly implies that going to war with Iraq to enforce UN resolution 1441 (and, by the way, a string of other UN resolutions that Saddam has violated over the last 12 years) is not justififed, since ONLY Israel is being genuinely threatened by Saddam anyway. In Abaya's opinion, it is okay for Iraq and Israel to annihilate each other as long as their fighting doesn't spill over to the rest of the Middle East, not to mention the rest of the world. Everyone else can just go about their merry way since an Iraq-Israeli war is none of their business anyway. (Concern is one thing. Actively intervening with preponderant force in favor of one side against the other is another. Obviously, eight million people in 600 cities worldwide are for concern but are against active intervention. I am not alone. ACA.) (By the way, Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any other member state. The US has exercised its veto in the Security Council more often than any other permanent member, most of it in support of Israel. ACA) I guess if one lives on a different planet, one would be unaffected by such a war. Perhaps Abaya already lives on such a planet. (When one resorts to gratuitous insults, it is a sign that one has run out of logical and factual arguments and has lost the debate. ACA) Janet Issa. [email protected] February 27, 2003 ���������������������������� (Through the Cebu/Politics egroup) To: Janet Issa, Your reaction will appear in the website www.tapatt.org, together with my comments. By the way, there was a message about you in this egroup, from one Liz Doit to one Vic, and it went as follows: I'm wondering, Vic, isn't "Janet's" mailbox just a mouthpiece alias for Orion? They write with virtually the same style, if you ask me. Sssssssh!c"). You have not commented on this message. Please give us your home or business address so people can be reassured that you are a real person and not just a front or alias for someone or something else. My credentials are as follows: Since 1987, I have been a columnist in BusinessWorld, then the Manila Chronicle, then the Philippine Star, then Philippine Graphic, and now in the Philippines Free Press, using my full and real name all the time. Check it out with the editors. Since 1987 I have written I would say about 40 articles on the Middle East/Oil/Israel/Islamic fundamentalism, including several from Abu Dhabi in 1996, when I was an invited guest of the UAE Government. All the pre-2003 articles among those 40 were generally pro-American and pro-Israel. I supported the 1991 Gulf War and the 2001-2002 war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I disagree with Bush on Iraq, just as I disagreed with Johnson-Nixon on Vietnam, even though I was not yet a columnist in 1965-75.. What about you, Janet? When did you become an expert on the Middle East/Oil/Israel? Antonio C. Abaya February 27, 2003 NOTE: Janet Issa or �Janet Issa� has not responded to this message. ����������������������������� A TRAFFIC POLICEMAN stopped a motorist for speeding. "Why me?" asked the motorist. "Didn't you see the others ahead of me? They were driving fast, too." The police asked, "Do you go fishing?" The motorist said, "Yes." The policeman said, "Well, you were the fish who got caught." Saddam is the fish for now. Don't worry, Tony, for as long as Bush is president, there will be another tyrant who will be hooked. And, by the way, if you were an ordinary, freedom-loving Iraqi, wouldn't you secretly wish the U.S. would take Saddam out? That is the message that Thomas Friedman has always been trying to put accross. Gras Reyes. [email protected] February 27, 2003 MY REPLY. Your analogy is cute. But is the �policeman� authorized (by the UN) to make arrests?. He could be just a kotong cop scheming to grab the expensive-looking Iraqmobile for his own use. Or he could be just a macho hagad pushing everyone aside to make way for the armor-plated Sharon limo. Or he could be a fake sheriff taking the law into his own hands because he believes he has the right to play God. I am also not at ease with a corny phrase like �freedom-loving Iraqis.� In the 1980s, the US supported the �freedom-loving Iraqis� under Saddam Hussein in their war against the ayatollahs of Iran. At that time, the ayatollahs of Iran were considered a bigger threat to Israel and US oil interests, and the US sided with Iraq, giving them, in fact, Iraq�s first stocks of anthrax and botulinum spores, which the freedom-loving Iraqis weaponized and used against the freedom-hating Iranians. One should learn to be cynical of propaganda from both sides. ����������������������������� (Through the CebuPolitics egroup) THERE WAS this iraqi scientist who used to work with saddam's bio-weapons program who was interviewed by cnn. he says that bhagdad is using basements of mosques and even the basement of one orphanage to hide these WMD's. as i said before, i hope we won't in hindsight be saying "the bush administration was right all along" (as what happened with churchill whom most peaceniks at that time labeled a war-monger for advocating pre-emptive actions against hitler prior to WWII) after the peaceniks won the game and saddam is finally able to use these WMD's against its neighbours successfully. its not impossible for the peaceniks to win this, since war is admittedly an ugly solution to an even uglier problem. Eben Ramos. [email protected] March 03 2003 MY REPLY. You are using a non-existent historical antecedent to justify your beloved President Bush�s pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Churchill advocated rearmament, not pre-emptive strike, against Nazi Germany. In 1940 Great Britain was not so great. It was, in fact, so weak militarily it was not capable of launching a pre-emptive strike against anyone, except possibly the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, the fictitious pimple of a country in the film �The Mouse That Roared.� If you�re looking for examples of pre-emptive strikes in the Second World War, try a) Hitler�s pre-emptive invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, which led to Britain and France declaring war on Germany on September 3; b) Hitler�s pre-emptive invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 through Operation Barbarossa, which eventually led to ignominious defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad and retreat back to Berlin; and c) Admiral Yamamoto�s pre-emptive strike against the US Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Eminently notorious company for your beloved President Bush. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |