[lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought

  • From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:59:52 EST

No real argument here; I simply read your post as carrying the subtext that  
Sunnis are marginalized in favour of the Shiites (religious  fundamentalists). 
 Re. these "little things I do", you can't please all the  people all of the 
time -- I'm always, naturally, too verbose or too brief for  someone.  This 
time it happened to be you, and too brief.  I thought  you would recognize what 
I was referring to.  
 
Julie Krueger

========Original  Message========     Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely 
Useful Thought  Date: 1/11/2007 1:09:44 P.M. Central Standard Time  From: 
_lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)   To: 
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   Sent on:    

Try and make complete  arguments if you can.  These little things you do don’
t make any  sense.  As I have said on numerous occasions, I am very much 
opposed to  Religious fundamentalism of all sorts. 
Lawrence 
 
  
____________________________________

From:  lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:43  AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful  Thought
 
<<The  alternative to a viable successful government in Iraq isn’t Chaos, it 
is three viable  successful governments, or perhaps only two, the Kurds and 
the Shias.  The  Sunnis better give up messing around if they want to retain 
anything in Iraq.   >> 
I think I finally  understand, Lawrence. To you, religious fundamentalism is 
a  good thing.  I'm starting to understand your  perspective. 
Julie  Krueger

========Original  Message========       
Subj:  
[lit-ideas]  Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought   
Date:  
1/9/2007 3:24:06 A.M. Central  Standard Time   
From:  
_lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)    
To:  
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)    
Sent on:      
Andreas:  I went  all through this misunderstanding with Irene.  I said the 
Baathist were  Militant Islamics.  They are Militant and they are Islamics.  
The  threat isn’t just from religious Militants.  Baathism was intended to  
achieve Pan-Arabism, bringing all the Arab nations under one head.  It was  
begun 
by Nassar who was assassinated.  Saddam liked the idea as well.   He was just 
as much of a threat with his Pan-Arabism as Khomeini was with his  religious 
revolution.  They both wanted the same thing, and then they  fought. 
Well yes Militant  Islam is a threat and no we don’t need to leave a viable 
successful government  in Iraq.  The alternative to  a viable successful 
government in Iraq isn’t Chaos, it  is three viable successful governments, 
or 
perhaps only two, the Kurds and the  Shias.  The Sunnis better give up messing 
around if they want to retain  anything in Iraq.    
Pulled into war?   Were any nations pulled into war when Iran and Iraq fought 
for eight  years?  No. 
As to needing  oil.  We don’t need that oil.  Europe, China, Japan etc needs  
it.  We probably need to make sure those nations get their oil and those  
nations count on us to keep the flow going, but we can do that.  We are the  
only 
nation in the world that can project an army-sized fighting force any place  
in the world.  Perhaps Britain is next but they are  getting rid of their 
navy. . . . 
Yeah, yeah,  yeah.  You’ve already told us how evil Bush is, but you don’t 
appreciate  how evil Saddam was and what a danger he represented with his 
Baathist Pan-Arab  aggressive plans.  We would not have been better of leaving 
him 
to his own  devices. 
No, our army isn’t  broken.  We could fight another Saddam-Hussein-sized Army 
next month if we  needed to.  What we couldn’t do is spend another three 
years or perhaps  even three months trying to rebuild an Iraq-sized nation.  It 
is 
the latter  thing we can’t do not the former. 
Lawrence 
-----Original Message-----
From:  lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf  Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 11:59 PM
To:  lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:  [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought 
From: "Lawrence Helm"  <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> I see our goal as combating Militant  Islam.  Baathism, especially Saddam's 
variation was  a 
> variety of it is  included. 
The Baathist were secular. They were NOT  an Islamic party, in fact, that was 
one of the  
reasons al-Qaeda called for the overthrow  of the Baathist regime. 
Militant Islam isn't the issue in  Iraq. That's a false threat,  like WMDs, 
etc. 
The problem in Iraq is the several dozen  militia who are fighting each other 
for control of  
the country. 
> Is it utterly necessary that we leave  a viable successful government in 
Iraq 
> after we  leave? 
Yes. It's utterly  necessary. 
If we leave and the country collapses into  war, the neighboring countries 
will be pulled  
into the war (the Saudi to protect their  ally Sunni and keep Iran's Shiites 
from getting  too  
powerful; the Turks to keep the Kurds from  getting too powerful; and Iran to 
protect their   
Shiite allies).  That starts a  large-scale regional war (Read abou the 
Iran-Irak War   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War  . That's the size of wars they 
can fight.) 
Why do we care? Because something like 80%  of the world's oil is in Iran, 
Iraq, Saudi   
Arabia, and Kuwait. If a regional war  starts, it will have extremely serious 
and negative   
effects on the global  economy. 
That's the problem: Bush got the  USA into a war that it now  can't quit. 
This is far worse  
than Vietnam. In Vietnam, we just walked away.  Nothing really mattered. But 
the economy is  
globalized  now. 
The most likely outcome of the next year  or so: the USA will move its 
military  into the  
bordering countries, esp.  Kuwait and  Saudi  Arabia. The US will try to 
convince  Syria,  Iran,   
Turkey, and Saudi  Arabia to not fuel the civil war. All of these  countries, 
incl. the USA,   
are in a Mexican standoff: everyone has  their guns out and whomever starts 
shooting will  
start a  free-for-all. 
Items to consider: the US military is broken. There  are only 9,000 more 
soldiers. How the US   
would fight a large land war is a good  question. Furthermore, this is too 
complex for the  
American population. Without general  support, the war is unfightable. 
It's pretty  bad. 
yrs, 
andreas 
www.andreas.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
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: