[lit-ideas] Re: Iraqi problems caused by Iran (1)
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 09:14:42 -0800
I am saying that based upon the 9 Iraqi problems Iran is causing, covered in
the three notes. When I considered the danger represented by Iran, I
assumed that if we got rid of their nuclear weapons, we could be able to
deal with the rest, but letting Iran destabilize Iraq is another thing that
is not an option.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 9:01 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Iraqi problems caused by Iran (1)
In a message dated 2/5/2006 10:37:55 A.M. Central Standard Time,
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Perhaps a surgical strike against just the nuclear sites won't be
sufficient:
On page 75, Berman writes, "Since the official end of major combat
operations in Iraq in May 2003, Iran has launched a massive strategic
offensive design to destabilize the post-totalitarian political system
there. This effort encompasses
Hi,
I'm not sure why you are saying this from that.
But, I will state that I hope that if we are going to attack Iran as we did
Iraq that the people who plan and execute such attack(s) be the people whose
careers were "ruined" (quoting a friend of mine who is retired military who
was recalled to assist - and who was so disgusted with how the whole Iraqi
situation was handled/being handled/planned/etc.)
Both you and Andreas did agree (albeit in different ways) in a thought that
I found interesting. (and somewhat hopeful). He stated that sanctions would
actually be harmful in that the ones who are NOT the fundamentalist ones are
the very ones who want to become more globally minded--and that sanctions
would hurt this type of thinking from spreading. You stated that the next
generation of fundamentalist Islamists would probably be not so
fundamentalist. (which does, actually, coincide with what I remember of my
sociology of religion -- that there are basically three [I think]
stages--the fundamentalist/true believer, the next generation who are
believers but not so fanatical as it is mostly from the 'family' that the
belief comes and then the next generation which wonders what the big deal
is, and so forth...)
So, I keep thinking that if 1) we could just 'hold the tension of the
opposites' [as Jung would state <g> and as was done in the Cold War], both
of those aspects of reality could take place. and if 2) we [those of us who
are relatively creative and concerned and NOT in the fundamentalist realm of
thought but who can see the reasons for it outside of G-d having whacked
someone one side of the head, could and WOULD figure out how to build
bridges to both help alleviate those fears within the fundamentalists who
are in the 'middle' [there is always a large group in the middle of any
belief system] and to assist those who are not fundamentalist to be able to
articulate that there is a caretaking mentality that DOES fall outside of
religious belief.
My only hope with what the Bush people stated about the cartoons, for
example, is that HOPEFULLY the reporting that stated of their sympathy to
and about the cartoons was just the first step in the attempt to calm the
situation down. That is, often you have to 'meet' the emotion where the
emotion is before you can calm the brain down enough to be able to have
access to the parts of the brain where the intellect/reasonable conversation
can occur.
I just keep thinking that there HAS to be a 'third' way out...not just
smashing another country and all their littles and not just
running/hiding/barricading oneself...
I just don't have much faith or trust in the surgical strike concept. I
don't have much faith or trust in those who are left running the planning
aspect of our military. The ones who seem to have had brains have left--and
those who will do the planning won't know what resources are needed (outside
of contracting with more mercenaries/security companies and getting stuff
from Halliburton and such--and hopefully the ramp up of this war isn't
because they need more profits if we pull out of Iraq...<sigh>] and won't
have any idea of what they will do with Iran if they do end up creating
another Iraq...(will they destroy THAT infrastructure, too? It should NOT
have been done in Iraq...not if the USA had really wanted to 'win the hearts
and the minds of the Iraqis' and expected to be greeted with open arms...I
do NOT think we had used all creative thought up before going into Iraq--and
I certainly do not think there was much creative thought allowed by those
who made the decision to play army and destroy the infrastructure ...
against all advice from the professional military types)
Best,
Marlena in Missouri
believing if you hold the tension of the opposites long enough, the third
way out will show itself...
Other related posts:
