[lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:55:28 EST
Sorry, I'm apparently more obtuse than usual today. Does "their" refer to
the majority of civilians? Iraqi military? Iraqi police? "Many" -- what
does that mean? Who has done a census of sorts to determine what "many" Iraqi
civilians, military, or police think? And finally, so I can understand,
defending themselves specifically against whom? One another? Iran? Israel?
The
U.S.? Insurgents? Al Qaeda? None of the above? All of the above? some
of the above depending on which Iraqi you're not asking?
Julie Krueger
insipid and blizzarding e-mails because I couldn't respond for a few days.
Catch-up is hell, as we all know after an office vacation.
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful
Thought Date: 1/11/2007 1:04:18 P.M. Central Standard Time From:
_lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx) To:
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
Julie Krueger read my phrase, “We shouldn’t let their ignorance stampede
us,
” and asked, “Their” ignorance of what, specifically?
There ignorance about what they are facing. Many of them overestimate their
ability. We don’t want to take them at their self-estimation if we don’t
believe they are truly capable of defending themselves. We need to do our
best to make them capable.
Lawrence
____________________________________
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:38 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
<<We shouldn’t let their ignorance stampede us, >>
"Their" ignorance of what, specifically?
Julie Krueger
========Original Message========
Subj:
[lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
Date:
1/9/2007 12:47:00 A.M. Central Standard Time
From:
_lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
To:
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Sent on:
Andreas,
You keep getting me mixed up with the Bush administration. I see our goal
as combating Militant Islam. Baathism, especially Saddam’s variation was a
variety of it is included. The Clinton appointee Kenneth Pollack in his, The
Threatening Storm, the Case of Invading Iraq lists a number of reasons for
fighting against Saddam’s army. We did defeat his army. There should be no
doubt about that. So what beyond that is necessary in the war against
Militant
Islam insofar as that subset of the war we call Iraq is concerned? Is it
utterly necessary that we leave a viable successful government in Iraq after we
leave? I walked downstairs to get some coffee a bit ago and Susan had on
Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes. Hannity was saying how horrible it would be
if
we didn’t achieve “total victory.” I waited to hear him explain what
that
was, but he didn’t. I was surprised by the look of anguish on his face as
he
said it, but his guest Dick Morris then continued on with something else and
I went back upstairs. I think there is some truth in the “if you broke it
you own it” dictum. We should certainly do our best to assist Iraq in
building
a defense force. We should help them get their army and police up and
running, but after that I think we ought to get out. Every nation in the
Middle
East has insurgents, or at least a potent Islamist anti-government presence of
some sort, and none of those nations are begging for America’s aid. When we
got there and toppled Saddam, a high percentage of Iraqis were thankful for
what we did, but time has passed and a majority thinks they can handle the
insurgents all by themselves. They want us to go home. We shouldn’t let
their
ignorance stampede us, but there is no reason for our hanging on there any
longer than necessary. What is “Total Victory”? You’ll have to ask
someone
else.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 8:55 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
Well, then, Lawrence, let's try this path.
You're right about Iraq and the terriers and the clash and all that stuff.
You got it right
on the facts, the logic, the morals, and the history. We had it all wrong.
How's that war in Iraq going? Total victory soon?
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:48 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
> Well, you've repeated a number of your ideas -- all of which I've
countered
> with arguments based upon evidence -- none of which you have replied to,
but
> I see that when the mood is upon you, you can trot them out and take them
> once around the track while wearing a new fedora. Then of course there is
> the inevitable personal attack in lieu of argument or counter argument -
the
> sort of thing judy says doesn't go on. I wondered if you Lefties would
hold
> off making it sound like Judy was right about all these attacks, but not
so.
> Was it the scorpion who couldn't resist stinging the fox swimming it
across
> the river or the snake? I can't recall.
>
Other related posts:
