[lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you delighted you no longer have a Hitler problem?
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:00:08 -0400
You're right. I should have said supported him. It's common knowledge. We
supported Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. There are pictures of Bush Sr.
shaking his hand. I'll find some links for you.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 6/24/2006 3:55:45 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you delighted you no longer have a Hitler
problem?
No, I don?t Irene and I?ve read several books on the subject. Tell me pray do
how the U.S. installed Saddam Hussein.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 12:51 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you delighted you no longer have a Hitler
problem?
Unmentioned by Lawrence is that the U.S. installed Saddam Hussein. Do you know
anything about that Lawrence?
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 6/24/2006 3:35:59 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you delighted you no longer have a Hitler
problem?
To paraphrase what you wrote, Yes, yes. . . Adolf Hitler was a fascist-type
dictator, but he was no threat to America, and America had no moral or legal
right to attack him. Didnt Hitler attack American shipping? Yes, but only
because it was supporting one of Hitlers enemies. We should have left poor
Hitler alone.
Didnt Saddam Hussein fire on American planes flying over the Kurds and Shiites
to keep Saddam from wrecking vengeance? Well, yeah, but America should have
left poor Saddam alone to run his own country in his own way.
Wasnt the U.S. and Iraq still technically at war? Sure, there was no end to
the first Gulf War only a truce.
Didnt the truce depend on Iraq meeting commitments it didnt meet? Yeah, sure
but who is the U.S. to demand that poor Saddam meet those commitments? Let the
pro-Saddam members of the Security Council in effect oppose holding Saddam to
his commitments and that should have trumped Americas desire to be legalistic
about them.
Shame on Bush for having it in for poor Fascist Saddam who gassed the Kurds and
Shiites and was supporting Islamist terror groups, and still threatened Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia such that at least the latter refused to cooperate with our
anti-Al-Quaida efforts because they were more afraid of Saddam than of us.
Jimmy Carter is said to have never met a dictator he couldnt love; surely Bush
could have learned to have loved Saddam.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ursula Stange
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 10:55 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you delighted you no longer have a Hitler
problem?
Lawrence Helm wrote:
> You guys would have been saying that Roosevelt was cooking up reasons
> for going to war against Hitler as a smokescreen for his acquisition
> of dictatorial powers or something like that.
>
> and:
>
> Do you agree that Saddam Hussein was a fascist-type dictator?
>
> Lawrence
>
Roosevelt was cooking up reasons for going to war against Hitler.
Yes, yes...Saddam Hussein was a fascist-type dictator, but he was no
threat to America, and America had no moral or legal right to attack
him. One of the most grievously harmful things Bush has done is change
the rules. By his legality and morality, the Islamists have both legal
and moral right to attack the U.S. As have Iran and North Korea. And
Haiti and Venezuela and ....
The goose and the gander and all that...
Jane Addams: The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an
exception of myself.
Ursula, who once visited Hull House
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
