[lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat

We've been here, done this dialogue, before.  If you're going to  justify war 
and the loss of American lives and dollars, based on the degree of  brutality 
of a tyrant, Hussein might not have been biggest fish in the  sea.  Lots of 
bad guys out there.  If you're going to justify the war  in Iraq and the loss 
of American lives and dollars, based on a response to 9/11,  Hussein had 
nothing to do with that (as has been made eminently clear by now);  as a 
Ba'athist 
and secularist the enmity between him and Bin Laden was  ideologically and 
pragmatically substantive.  How in the world invading  Iraq was a response to 
the 
9;/11 attacks and threat posed by radical Islamisist  terrorists is simply not 
clear, not only to me, but also to a fair percentage of  informed people on 
the planet.  The evidence that having done so three  years ago has actually 
provided some measure of support to the terrorist group  which instigated 9/11 
seems lost on you entirely.  If you're going to  justify the war and the loss 
of 
American lives and dollars by calling Sadaam a  Militant Islamisist, you're 
going to have to go a far ways farther to make that  case.  You seem to (from 
previous posts) consider political ("Pan-Arab")  and religious (let's lump 
Sunnis, Kurds, and secularists together and assume the  Shiites have a foot in 
the 
boat also) goals and motivations to be of a singular  nature.  You of all 
people would tell anyone that this is far too black  & white, lacking so many 
nuances, and considering Islam to be a monolith  when it simply is so far from 
it.  
 
Julie Krueger
========Original  Message========
Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat  Date: 1/11/2007 3:34:08 
P.M. Central Standard Time  From: _lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
(mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)   To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   Sent on:    

What does this have to  do with anything?  Just because we remove one Brutal 
Tyrant doesn’t mean  that we have to remove them all.  This isn’t a 
principle.    Representatives of Militant Islam attacked us on 9/11.  We in 
turn  
responded to the attack, considering ourselves at war by attacking Afghanistan  
and 
to use a quote from Thomas Barnett, kindly provided to us by Brian, “We’re  
mad as hell after 9/11, we’re not going to take it anymore, and we’re going 
to  go in and lay a big bang on this part of the world, try to shake things up 
by  taking down the biggest, baddest actor in the region, and establishing the 
 possibility of a new order.”   This by the way is very much in keeping  with 
the Islamic sense of honor (see Honor,  a History, by James Bowman).   
Lawrence 
 
  
____________________________________

From:  lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 1:18  PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice  of Defeat
 
How many brutal  tyrants of how many countries is the U.S. prepared/equipped 
to relieve of  duty?
 

 
Policing the world is  a wonderful idea ....if it worked ... if we were God 
and knew everything, and  innocents were rescued rather than killed....
 

 
Please let the brutal  tyrants know when the U.S. has achieved omnipresence,  
omniscience, and omnipotence.
 

 
Julie  Krueger
 


========Original  Message========       
Subj:  
[lit-ideas]  Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat   
Date:  
1/11/2007 2:50:34 P.M. Central  Standard Time   
From:  
_lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)    
To:  
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)    
Sent on:      
Go back and read what  I said about why we invaded Iraq.  You want me to  
respond to a strawman argument that is easily defeated and has been many  
times.  
Just a hint for you: Paul Berman a legitimate Liberal has been  outraged by 
all those claiming to be liberal who didn’t want to get rid of  Saddam 
Hussein 
all along.   He doesn’t think anyone who thinks  Iraq would be better off if 
we  left Saddam in place deserves to be called a Liberal.  To want to leave a  
brutal tyrant in charge of a nation, Berman, stridently reminds us, is not a  
liberal position.  Liberals don’t believe in keeping brutal dictators in  
place.   
The Iraqi leadership  and the majority of all those in Iraq are not  
religious fundamentalists, but we should as I urge understood what these  
fundamentalists have argued and will argue if we leave  prematurely. 
Lawrence 
-----Original Message-----
From:  lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf  Of Ursula Stange
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:29 PM
To:  lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:  [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat 
LH wrote 
...much  snipped... 
If when we leave, the Islamic  Fundamentalists can declare victory, that  
is if we don’t leave the present Iraqi  government in a very strong  
position, then we shall be buying trouble  for ourselves. As Barnett  
suggests, we shall probably have to go  back again. We won’t save money  
by leaving  prematurely. 
------------------------- 
Lawrence, I snipped most of your post because  it's only this bit I want  
to respond to. And I don't know where to  begin. 
First, don't you think about the fact that  the Islamic Fundamentalists  
are the Shiites -- the very people the  Americans trusted the government  
to? The very people who are protecting (if  not organizing) the  
fundamentalist militias? And now we need  to work to secure their  
positions? So they can keep the Shiites  from declaring victory? 
Second, isn't there some sense of morality  that should have a place on  
this stage? You trashed a country in order  to oust its leader. You  
didn't just kill his children or ruin his  life. You trashed a country.  
And now you want to arrange the country so  that those in power will  
favour you with their favours? What of the  ordinary Iraqis -- the  
children, the grandmothers, the young  brides, the schoolboys? Who cares  
to protect them? In the end, you're going  to sign off on a  
fundamentalist dictatorship in exchange  for the peace that passeth oil.  
And it will put the women back in burqas  and the prostitutes in sand up  
to their necks. Wait...isn't this why we  chased the Taliban out of  
Afghanistan? I'm getting confused  again... 
Ursula 
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
To change your Lit-Ideas settings  (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, 
digest on/off), visit  www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: