By William Markiewicz
Or should we call it "new Mini-Carthage?" The New York Times Op-Ed page (December 28, 2001) featured an article by Richard Perle: "The U.S. must strike at Saddam Hussein" subtitled "Powerful weapons are in the hands of a dangerous man."
I didn't bother to read the article. I was angered by the arrogant display of power in the title. It reminded me of the Roman: "Carthage must be destroyed." There are so many countries with dangerous weapons, from world powers to lesser powers. Why should weapons be more dangerous in the hands of a peanut like Iraq? Saddam Hussein made a mistake attacking Kuwait. He was defeated and he learned the lesson. Why does eternal revenge apply to one and not to others? Smaller countries, no matter how powerful, will never start a total war because they know they won't survive the boomerang effect. So, pursuing them is only an excuse for other agendas. Even today's trend to pursue world terrorism may cover other agendas. After all, it's like running after smoke. How can anybody grab some potential kamikaze who may not even have dreamed that he will become one?