[lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you delighted you no longer have a Hitler problem?

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:55:55 -0700

No, I don't Irene and I've read several books on the subject.  Tell me pray
do how the U.S. installed Saddam Hussein.

 

Lawrence

 

  _____  

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 12:51 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you delighted you no longer have a Hitler
problem?

 

Unmentioned by Lawrence is that the U.S. installed Saddam Hussein.  Do you
know anything about that Lawrence?  

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  Helm 

To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: 6/24/2006 3:35:59 PM 

Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you delighted you no longer have a Hitler
problem?

 

To paraphrase what you wrote, Yes, yes. . . Adolf Hitler was a fascist-type
dictator, but he was no threat to America, and America had no moral or legal
right to attack him.  Didnt Hitler attack American shipping?  Yes, but only
because it was supporting one of Hitlers enemies.  We should have left poor
Hitler alone.

 

Didnt Saddam Hussein fire on American planes flying over the Kurds and
Shiites to keep Saddam from wrecking vengeance?  Well, yeah, but America
should have left poor Saddam alone to run his own country in his own way.

 

Wasnt the U.S. and Iraq still technically at war?  Sure, there was no end
to the first Gulf War  only a truce.  

 

Didnt the truce depend on Iraq meeting commitments it didnt meet?  Yeah,
sure but who is the U.S. to demand that poor Saddam meet those commitments?
Let the pro-Saddam members of the Security Council in effect oppose holding
Saddam to his commitments and that should have trumped Americas desire to
be legalistic about them.  

 

Shame on Bush for having it in for poor Fascist Saddam who gassed the Kurds
and Shiites and was supporting Islamist terror groups, and still threatened
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia such that at least the latter refused to cooperate
with our anti-Al-Quaida efforts because they were more afraid of Saddam than
of us.  Jimmy Carter is said to have never met a dictator he couldnt love;
surely Bush could have learned to have loved Saddam.

 

Lawrence

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ursula Stange
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 10:55 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you delighted you no longer have a Hitler
problem?

 

Lawrence Helm wrote:

 

> You guys would have been saying that Roosevelt was cooking up reasons 

> for going to war against Hitler as a smokescreen for his acquisition 

> of dictatorial powers  or something like that.

> 

> and:

> 

> Do you agree that Saddam Hussein was a fascist-type dictator?

> 

> Lawrence

> 

Roosevelt was cooking up reasons for going to war against Hitler.

 

Yes, yes...Saddam Hussein was a fascist-type dictator, but he was no 

threat to America, and America had no moral or legal right to attack 

him. One of the most grievously harmful things Bush has done is change 

the rules. By his legality and morality, the Islamists have both legal 

and moral right to attack the U.S. As have Iran and North Korea. And 

Haiti and Venezuela and ....

 

The goose and the gander and all that...

 

Jane Addams: The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an 

exception of myself.

 

Ursula, who once visited Hull House

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

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: