Learn what will happen during the tribulation period from beginning to end
Your comments and questions are always welcome. To send comments and questions please click here to go to our main page.
To recieve updates the day they come out click here and type "add" in the subject line.
Julian
Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday August 16, 2002
The Guardian
One of the Republican party's most respected foreign policy gurus yesterday
appealed for President Bush to halt his plans to invade Iraq, warning of
"an Armageddon in the Middle East".
The outspoken remarks from Brent
Scowcroft, who advised a string of Republican presidents, including Mr. Bush's
father, represented an embarrassment for the administration on a day it was
attempting to rally British public support for an eventual war.
The US national security adviser,
Condoleezza Rice, yesterday spelled out what she called the "very powerful
moral case" for toppling Saddam Hussein. "We certainly do not have the
luxury of doing nothing," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. She said
the Iraqi leader was "an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak
havoc again on his own population, his neighbours and, if he gets weapons of
mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us".
But while Ms. Rice was making the
case for a pre-emptive strike, the rumble of anxiety in the US was growing
louder. A string of leading Republicans have expressed unease at the
administration's determination to take on President Saddam, but the most damning
critique of Mr. Bush's plans to date came yesterday from Mr. Scowcroft.
The retired general, who also advised
Presidents Nixon and Ford, predicted that an attack on Iraq could lead to
catastrophe.
"Israel would have to expect to
be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the
Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed,
provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an
Armageddon in the Middle East," Mr. Scowcroft wrote in the Wall Street
Journal.
The Israeli government has vowed it
would not stand by in the face of attacks as it did in 1991, when Iraqi Scud
missiles landed on Israeli cities. It claims it has Washington's backing for
retaliation.
Mr. Scowcroft is the elder statesman
of the Republican foreign policy establishment, and his views are widely
regarded as reflecting those of the first President Bush. The fierceness of his
attack on current administration policy illustrates the gulf between the elder
Bush and his son, who has surrounded himself with far more radical ideologues on
domestic and foreign policy.
In yesterday's article, Mr. Scowcroft
argued that by alienating much of the Arab world, an assault on Baghdad, would
halt much of the cooperation Washington is receiving in its current battle
against the al-Qaida organisation.
"An attack on Iraq at this time
would seriously jeopardise, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign
we have undertaken," Mr Scowcroft wrote.
Both the American and British
governments are expected to time a public relations effort to rebuff the critics
and build public support in the immediate run-up to an invasion.
END
This is definitely not Armageddon but
it may lead to what the Bible has described in Ezekiel 38 – 39 as an all out
attack on Israel by the Arab world lead by Russia.
Very few Arab countries are in love with Iraq so I don’t see them
coming to their defense. But if Iraq attacks Israel (which probably will happen) they
(Israel) will retaliate and that could be the spark that brings on a forest
fire.
Honestly, I don’t see that coming.
Iraq wasn’t that powerful before the Gulf War, and hasn’t really had
much time to rebuild. Yes, they
have been spending a lot of money to rebuild their military, but it’s window
dressing at best. But to allow them
to continue in their buildup would be devastating in the future.
Eventually, they will come to the place that they will have the capacity
reach U.S. soil with weapons of mass destruction. No, they probably never will be able to defeat us but they
could bring destruction to America that we have never experienced.
A preemptive strike is the smart approach if we are to live safely within
our own borders.
As for those who have been crying
foul over the proposed attack, we have to sometimes think for those who aren’t
thinking straight. If we think that
Saddam eventually won’t have his sites set on us were crazy.
We are the only thing standing between his goal of destroying Israel.
Pastor Malone