[lit-ideas] Re: Iraqi problems caused by Iran (1)
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:10:43 -0800
Marelena,
My friend from Iraq, Greg, describes the various elements that could be
grouped under the category "insurgency," and while I didn't get an
impression of urgency, all these elements will have to be dealt with
eventually, either by the U.S. or later by the Iraqi government, and many of
them are created or financed by Iran. My thought was that as long as we
were going to knock out their nuke plants with surgical strikes, we might
consider other targets if they could be seen as related to the support of
insurgency in Iraq.
I have to say one more thing and this is general in nature. It does not
necessarily follow that the avoidance of war will reduce the number of lost
lives. Consider this: we avoided going to war against Germany as long as
possible, but did that save lives? I think it can be readily proved that
our delay was extremely costly in the loss of life. Of course we were
neither emotionally nor politically prepared to go to war against Germany at
an early date (which also contributed to the loss of life), but if we had
prepared for war and were prepared to engage in an preemptive strike,
millions of lives could have been saved.
A similar thing could be said of Japan. Had we prepared for war, they
probably wouldn't have attacked us, but they saw us as blustering beyond our
capability. We talked big but hadn't the military to back it up. In that
case our lack of preparation for war cost us enormously in a war we had to
scramble to conduct.
We did preempt Saddam Hussein. There is no doubt but that he was seeking
nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Years of sanctions had not
dimmed his belligerency. Had we left him alone indefinitely, he would
eventually have acquired what he sought. A problem with preemption is that
after the fact you can't prove that (if you had engaged in preemption),
Hitler, Tojo, or Saddam Hussein would have done what they sought to do. We
have tried it both ways and I much prefer preemption. Iran's behavior calls
for preemption in my opinion.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 9:28 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Iraqi problems caused by Iran (1)
In a message dated 2/5/2006 11:16:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
but letting Iran destabilize Iraq is another thing that is not an option.
Hi,
Thanks, btw, for posting the information from that book. It is informative
and also helpful not to have to either go request yet another title (I have
too many checked out ... will end up not knowing where they all are--as I
read as Paul Stone does and Dickens did...and also being on the budget that
I am, I try to avoid purchasing books whenever possible...though I will have
to soon as I heard my cousin has written a book which my mother has stated
was a good thriller/science fiction type [Chromosome 8])
Surely Iran has not JUST begun to do all those actions which you are stating
need to be dealt with? Surely our forces there (as well as our grand
military strategists who are left in that official capacity) are well aware
of this and have been working hard to close the borders, etc.? I remember
hearing/reading about that a long time ago. Granted, watching/closing
borders is obviously not a skill that our government is very good at <wry
look>, but still--seems like smashing another country just because we cannot
close borders seems a bit extreme. (I can understand the nuclear weapon
argument far better than this one <g>)
(Though from what I know of Iraq/Iran and the rhetoric from both and knowing
how secular most of Iraq was and how oh...it's treatment of women, education
of girls, best healthcare in the Middle East, highest number of middle
class, etc.--seemed like if one had had to choose a bad guy to go
after--Iran might have been a more important target--esp if they are the
ones who are the originators of the fundamentalist Islamic theology that is
permeating the area. NOT that having one's soul scream because of what has
happened and/or should have been actually does much that is constructive, I
know. <sigh> [though sometimes it lets that emotion out so that you can then
look at the situation a bit differently...]
I just think, again, that there are so many who are NOT of that
fundamentalist strain--I have read countless articles about the desire of
the younger set (esp) for modernisation/interest in other parts of the
world, etc., not to mention the archaeological history that would be
destroyed by yet another destructive war in that area--
Go back to your surgical strikes, okay? <g> If we *have* to do
something--at least let's destroy the fewest number of innocent littles...
Best,
Marlena in Missouri
Other related posts:
