[lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:54:01 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/9/2006 11:06:50 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
Irene,
I haven't watched the news today and so couldn't very well be reacting to it,
but if I were I wouldn't react as absurdly as you suggest.
A.A. That's old news. I posted a link anyway. BBC has it. It's all over the
place. It's probably not big news because everybody's known it for years
except those who wouldn't admit it.
L.H. But beyond that when did I ever say there was a connection between Saddam
and OBL? Let me put it another way, I never said there was a connection
between Saddam and OBL.
A.A. Then why did we invade them? Ah, yes, WMD and to spread democracy. 9/11
was just a coincidence, a rhetorical device.
L.H. I know Saddam supported some terrorist training.
A.A. If he did, which I've never heard that he did, it was nothing close to
what was going on in Afghanistan, the war we forgot about. Saddam was too busy
building palaces and gassing Kurds. He was too busy terrorizing his own people
to care about us.
L.H. I heard of some Al Quaeda members who contacted their counterparts in
Iraq,
A.A. After we created a haven for them, yes indeed.
L.H. but OBL himself, no.
A.A. OBL is shorthand for al Qaeda. It's fewer letters to type. OBL is
irrelevant at this point. They dismantled (past tense) the OBL room. It's
gone. That's how important OBL himself is 5 years after the fact.
L.H, So, you're making that up -- getting your imagination confused with
reality once again -- much the same way that Andreas makes things up by the way.
A.A. Well at least I got company.
L.H. Well, of course Europe has learned that war doesn't pay. They have
initiated the bloodiest wars the planet has ever seen, two of them. They must
have learned something from that.
A.A. Indeed. That's why they told us not to invade Iraq and we did not listen.
L.H. And we bailed them out both times, not all of them, just the ones that
were losing.
A.A. And it went to our heads. And now we need them to bail us out. Fair's
fair and they don't want to play. Tsk tsk.
L.H, And it?s a good thing that the U.S. has yet to learn that war doesn't
pay.
A.A. Even after it started a war and lost it virtually on day one. We didn't
learn vicariously from watching the European experience and participating to
some extent, we didn't learn from Vietnam, we didn't learn from starting a war
in Iraq, and we didn't even counsel the Israelis with our unlearned experience
that war doesn't pay. They at least did learn it doesn't pay. Hopefully they
learned but who knows. The U.S. will keep working on it until it does learn.
L.H. Look at all the troops we lost bailing the European losers out in two of
their World Wars. Look at all the troops we lost in bailing out China by
warring against the Japanese.
A.A. Nowhere near as many as they lost. The Russians alone ...
L.H. On the other hand, we could have saved all those American troops
A.A. Not after Pearl Harbor we couldn't. WWI was another fiasco started by
our brethren that needed to dispose of some excess population.
L.H. and let all those weak-kneed losers stew in their own juice if we had
learned your lesson, ?that war doesn't pay.?
A.A. Not really, unless Pearl Harbor didn't matter. Plus Churchill and FDR
were good buddies. Plus other reasons. No, we couldn't.
L.H. I think you must be a brilliant strategist Irene to suggest we shouldn't
have been engaging in war. I can't imagine why I didn't think of that before.
A.A. Well, in fact we shouldn't be engaging in Iraq. I think it would take
less than a brilliant strategist to know that we'd be greeted with more than
flowers. Neocons, the new flower power. Like groovy. Turn on, tune in, drop
a bomb, uh, drop out ... I am the walrus ... 9, 9, 9, ... All we are saying
... What a long strange trip it's been ... Neocons spelled backwards is ... is
... snocoen ...
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 7:36 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
You posted to the list a message intended only for Eric. Thanks for explaining
that. Apologies to Joerge, since he wrote to Andreas and not me. I think
you're just a sore loser, Lawrence, especially now that the Senate has said
that there was no connection between Saddam and OBL and you've been saying
there is, and Bush himself said there was no connection. If you want to talk
about the Twilight Zone, talk about your position and how it squares with the
reality that I've been saying existed all along and that you've been denying
all along. Are you smoke screening that little oversight maybe?
For Andreas, even though my heart's not in it, because we came out of Europe
doesn't make Europe historically anything other than dysfunctional. Maybe less
so now and maybe less warlike than the U.S. now but only because they learned
the hard way that war doesn't pay. The U.S. has yet to learn that lesson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/9/2006 9:44:40 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
http://sonicimages.com/webdata/soundtracks/outerlimits/snd/outerlimits-16.MP2
Irene/Andy,
What Im impressed with is that I sent a note to Eric, because of our previous
discussions about Iran, and you responded, Irene/Andy, as though I sent the
note to you. I know that Eric speculated that Jack Spratt might be one of
your pseudonyms or alternate personalities, but, but, but, could that have been
a smoke screen? Could all this time Andy, er, Irene have been one, that is
two of Erics alternate personalities? Perhaps this whole pseudonym business
is more monstrous and diabolical than we realized . . .
http://sonicimages.com/webdata/soundtracks/outerlimits/snd/outerlimits-16.MP2
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 5:54 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
I'm responding based on what I know. I thought you'd be impressed. I'm
technologically challenged. I'll see if I can watch him tomorrow.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/9/2006 8:48:31 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
Which means, you are once again responding to one of my notes without reading
it, or in this case watching it. The link comes up when I click on it, but you
can go to the Thomas Barnett site (http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/ ) scroll
down and find it that way.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
