Lawrence, I even had to set you straight about the worst case scenario. Needless to say your facts are not stellar. Look at it this way. You've got your war, right? You're going to be raptured out, so let's drop the pretense that you care whether there's a world left once you're in safely in heaven. If nothing else, Hell and Satan were creations of the Church, so the people left behind will merely die. They don't have to worry about going to a place that was invented for control purposes, unlike of course, Heaven, which really exists. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: 8/1/2006 10:24:11 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Brigette Gabriel again supporting Israel Irene, In view of the fact that Militant Islam has sworn the destruction of the infidel, your note makes absolutely no sense. If a maniacal killer had sworn to kill you would you say that resistance wouldn?t work? Military resistance is THE ONLY OPTION when an entity has sworn to fight you to the death. You cannot treat with people that want you dead. Instead of your construction, had you written ?what does it take for a lasting peace to be obtained between Israel and its neighbors?? The answer would be simple: Get those neighbors to quit trying to destroy Israel. Get them to acknowledge Israel?s right to exist. You complain about Israel?s army, but with all Israel?s neighbors seeking its destruction, it is merely prudent to have as large an army as possible. I really did think for awhile that diplomacy was going to cause Ahmadinejad to take a softer course, that he had some realpolitik I there some place. The cake had been baked and was offered, but he has refused it. Realpolitik be damned. It is characteristic of Militant Islam that leaders fancy that Allah won?t let them lose despite the fact that on paper it looks as though they haven?t a chance. Saddam Hussein really thought he would win -- both times. Ahmadinejad may very well feel that he can?t lose against the US, and it may be that he?ll be luckier than Saddam. It may be that since the nations that criticized us over defeating Saddam the second time are now insistent on diplomacy-only in the case of Iran, that the US is willing to let that play out. It won?t necessarily end when Iran has atomic weapons. North Korea and Iran are convinced that once a nation has atomic weapons, the US?s hands are tied. I don?t think that?s true by a long shot, but in the meantime th is is being played out as our Left-leaning allies want. Seems as though he?ll get his atomic weapons and the lesson will be that the EU, UN diplomatic approach was foolish and ineffective. Of course this won?t prevent even more-foolish people from saying the diplomacy would have worked if the US had given just a little more support to it. Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Amago Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 6:15 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Brigette Gabriel again supporting Israel Stan, even if all this is true, what does it take to convince people that a military solution doesn't work? It was in the process of not working big time in Iraq when Israel invaded. People always think it can only happen to the other guy. Since its inception Israel has pursued peace at the point of a gun, and here they are. The Vietnamese mopped the floor with us. Our military might is the reason hell on earth exists in Iraq. Military solutions don't work. Do you think, Stan, if Bush had metaphorically baked a cake and knocked on Ahmadinejad's door and had coffee with him and talked about his vacation plans, do you think that there might be a better result than what there is today? Truly, how do you think things would look if Bush had treated A. and his country like they were made up of human beings, responded to their overtures instead of escalating this thing to where it is? We were a hyper power, not a super power, a hyper power (the French coined that word). Iran would have loved to feel embraced by a hyper power. Who wouldn't? And how different things would be, don't you think? Instead, Iran is rising and we're becoming irrelevant. I grant you that an approach like that would not have worked with Stalin, but it might have worked in the early stages of the Russian Revolution. Israel was conceived in war and existed through war. They have something like the third or fifth biggest military in the world (third, maybe even second in firepower, courtesy of the U.S. China is second in size; second, third, Israel is up there). So, whimper or rage, war is what you have. It's not too late to drop the superiority and the arrogance, but the hour is late. And please don't write back and tell me about Hitler. There is no comparison at all, unless you're willing to see Israel in the aggressor role, which of course you never will.