[lit-ideas] Re: After August 22
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:12:54 -0700
Irene, I didn't see the Peter Galbraith article. If it was posted, I missed
it. I didn't see it. I didn't' read it. You are on your high horse about
things I didn't see when you should practice reading the articles you can
see. I also don't watch ABC, so I missed the warmongering etc etc you are
referring to. We have very different ways of looking at articles and news.
You comment as though you read something you don't read, and if I don't
comment about something I haven't read you seem to think I'm in denial.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:02 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: After August 22
Another surprise, anti-American ambassadors to the M.E. who write books
aren't allowed in Lawrence's bunker. Don't read him, Lawrence. You don't
want to know what the other side is saying. Come to think of it, that's why
we're doing so well in Iraq, because we invaded without a clue as to what
the other side was saying. Carry on that tradition, and shoo Galbraith and
Suskind and Ricks away from your door.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 8/23/2006 12:45:54 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: After August 22
I didnt see or read the Peter Galbraith reference and inasmuch as I have a
policy against responding to notes I havent read, I guess Im just going to
have to forego arguing with Peter Galbraith.
And one of the things I mean was in the earlier Walter Williams article I
posted. Perhaps it didnt make it all the way through the Lit-Ideas mail
system. It was as follows:
Lawrence
Theres no denying it. The Left has had a tremendous influence on the US
since WWII. Leftists do peace at any price with straight faces and no
signs of shame. They root for the enemy. If it were up to them Saddam
Hussein would still be in power. If it were up to them, Iran would get
their nukes [I wrote this before reading the latest MEMRI report]. Walter
Williams doesnt use the term Left so that should meet the approval of
those who dont like pigeon holes, but can there be any doubt? He even has
a special message for Irene in his last paragraph -- gotta like the guy.
Lawrence
Will the West defend itself?
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Does the United States have the power to eliminate terrorists and the states
that support them? In terms of capacity, as opposed to will, the answer is a
clear yes.
Think about it. Currently, the U.S. has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class
submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles.
Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being
independently targeted. That means the U.S. alone has the capacity to wipe
out Iran, Syria or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages
in terrorism -- without risking the life of a single soldier.
Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide
public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our
weak will, we'll never use it. Today's Americans are vastly different from
those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War
II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts
of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.
Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears during World War II when we
firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives through saturation
bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After the battle of Midway, and the long string of Japanese defeats in the
Pacific, including Guam, Okinawa and the Philippines, had today's Americans
been around, they'd be willing to negotiate with Japan for peace, pointing
to the additional loss of lives if we continued the war. More than likely
they would have made the same argument in 1945, when German defeat was
imminent. Of course, had there been a peace agreement with Japan and
Germany, all it would have achieved would have been to give them time to
recoup their losses and resume their aggression at a later time, possibly
equipped with nuclear weapons.
We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the
occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized
our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.
Our adversaries in the Middle East have advantages that the axis powers
didn't have -- the Western press and public opinion. We've seen widespread
condemnation of alleged atrocities and prisoner mistreatment by the U.S.,
but how much media condemnation have you seen of beheadings and other gross
atrocities by Islamists?
Terrorists must be pleased by statements of some members of Congress, such
as those by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who recently said, "I don't take
sides for or against Hezbollah." Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is responsible
for the 1983 bombing of Beirut barracks killing 241 U.S. service members.
I'm not suggesting that we rush to use our nuclear capacity to crush states
that support terrorism. I'm sure there are other less drastic military
options. What I am suggesting is that I know of no instances where
appeasement, such as the current Western modus operandi, has borne fruit.
What Europeans say about what should be done about terrorist states should
fall on deaf ears. Their history of weakness and cowardice during the 1930s
goes a long way toward accounting for the 60 million lives lost during World
War II. During the mid-'30s, when Hitler started violating the arms
limitations of the Versailles Treaty, France and Britain alone could have
handily defeated him, but they pursued the appeasement route.
Anyone who thinks current Western appeasement efforts will get Iran to end
its nuclear weapons program and end its desire to eliminate Israel is dumber
than dumb. Appeasement will strengthen Iran's hand, and it looks as if the
West, including the United States, is willing to be complicit in that
strengthening.
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:24 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: After August 22
In other words, it's okay for us to redesign the Middle East, and the
countries in the area have to take what we dish out. Is that what you mean?
How do you respond to the fact - the fact, Lawrence, or argue with Peter
Galbraith that he's wrong - that Iran made friendly overtures and we
rebuffed them at every turn? Why are you not focusing on our warlike
rhetoric? It's our right to be belligerent without push back? Do you think
that's feasible?
Other related posts:
