[lit-ideas] Re: Brigette Gabriel again supporting Israel
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:35:28 -0400
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.
Other related posts:
