[lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape

Poor besieged Lawrence.  How would you suggest we fight the Islamists?   Are 
our boys not fighting hard enough?  If we cheered from over here, would they 
fight harder?  BTW, Osama won against the Soviets, and they were a mighty 
nuclear power.  Maybe we'll be luckier.  Luck so far seems to be the name of 
the game.  Certainly not strategy.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lawrence Helm 
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 1/20/2006 9:19:18 PM 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape


We need to oppose the Islamists.  We are in a war with them.  Bush may or may 
not be fighting them as well as he could, but at least he is fighting them.  I 
won?t quibble about whether he is doing everything right.  He probably isn?t.  
But we do need to fight the Islamists.  We do not need to support the Islamists 
by early withdrawal from Iraq.

Lawrence




From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 6:11 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape

We ought to be doing a lot of things.  That's why we have leadership, to guide 
and lead us in our oughts.  Why are they not making it clear who and what is 
the case?  Bush is always talking about a War on Terror even as he cuts taxes 
for the ultra rich and vacations at his ranch.  Is he not the clock by which we 
set our watches?  Is Congressional corruption the way to fight Islamism?  If 
you're suggesting we talk a good line, that's a different story.  


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lawrence Helm 
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 1/20/2006 9:04:30 PM 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape

We have an enemy: the Islamists.  The Islamists want to conquer us.  We need to 
oppose them.

If you disagree you should logically argue that we dont need to oppose them or 
that they dont want to conquer us.

If we arent opposing them as well as we ought, that doesnt detract from the 
argument that we ought to oppose them.  Although I did mention it as an aside, 
the people are being provided with faulty information by the media.  I blame 
the media and the people for that.  The media for being perverse and the people 
for being gullible, but I am not surprised by any it.  We will (as a people) 
eventually learn that the enemy is to be taken seriously  that he does want to 
conquer us.  It took a lot of blood to get us into both World Wars.  We 
probably need to bleed a bit more before we develop enthusiasm for this one, 
but notice that Osama does intend to make us bleed.

Lawrence




From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:44 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape

Okay, let's cut the leadership some slack.  It's all the people's fault that we 
lost this war.  Let's blame them instead.  It wasn't Napoleon's fault that he 
lost (or won).  It was the French people, right?   So let me get this straight. 
 This is a necessary war, but not an important one.  Is that right?  And kindly 
point out the bothersome non sequiturs.  


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lawrence Helm 
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 1/20/2006 8:38:47 PM 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape

You are giving me a headache with your non sequiturs.  I didnt discuss the 
importance, but I do believe it is a necessary war.  It can become more 
important if we dilly dally and let them win more than we ought to let them 
win.  You have introduced several tangents which dont seem important.  We have 
an implacable enemy.  We may or may not be fighting him as enthusiastically as 
we ought.  From the fact that so many people want us to withdraw prematurely 
from Iraq (to the delight of Osama) it is clear that millions dont understand 
the importance of fighting this enemy.   So perhaps the people you refer to 
as not doing something right ought to be given some slack for not fighting them 
as well as they might.  

Lawrence




From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:25 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape

Well, if it was such an important war, why wasn't it fought more seriously?  
Why did the Army have to laugh at their proposal and insist on a larger army 
than what Rove & Co. wanted, and still be nowhere close to what was needed?  
Why was there no plan for after Baghdad fell?  Why did we go to war with the 
army we had instead of the army we needed (a paraphrase)?  Why cut taxes when 
the money is needed for military spending to fund the army to fight this war 
that we need so desperately?  Yadda yadda.  In short, why was it not waged as 
if it was an important war?  If you say it was the Democrats' fault, then 
you're passing the buck.  The Republicans run the show and he had everybody's 
approval in any case.

Other related posts: