[lit-ideas] Re: Dark Thoughts on Iraq
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:27:08 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 9/28/2005 5:24:03 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Dark Thoughts on Iraq
>
>
> Unless I also post some dark thoughts about Iraq, people will think
> I'm a full-time (instead of temp) swinish hack. So here goes.
>
> *Must an armed, fanatic minority can successfully impose its will on
> a cowed majority?
>
Historically this is not a rarity. It took the Soviet Union the entire
20th century to get rid of a fanatic minority that entrenched itself. For
that matter, Saddam was a minority.
> *Is there anything better than the Bush plan: tough it out
> with an average of 2 or 3 of our men murdered every day while we
> train the Iraqis to take over their own future as soon as possible?
> What the Iraqis will make of it is anyone's guess.
>
If it could be done, don't you think we'd be further ahead instead of
losing ground continuously? Are you prepared to stay a good 10 years, and
what will you have at the end of that time? Not only that, the Iraqi
people themselves hate us. We're occupying their country. They don't want
us there.
> *Will America have the political/societal will to last over the long
> haul? Has Binladen read us correctly there?
>
No to the first part, Yes to the second. OBL did read us right and knows
it will tear the country apart, and it will drain our already meager
resources for no return at all.
> *Will my fellow liberals prefer to have Bush fail (as Paul Stone
> thinks) rather than let Iraqi freedom win? If we do prefer to see
> Bush fail, won't his failure be OUR failure? If Bush fails, why do
> my fellow liberals think that they live on a special reservation
> insulated from all the repercussions of history?
>
The military themselves have written this off as a winnable war.
> *Ralph Peters talks about a "strategic raid" strategy, punitive
> expeditions for specific enemy crimes or attacks, which has a
> definite 19th century British imperial feel to it. Is this the best
> future strategy? It is not too satisfying as a cure, especially when
> you work enemy WMDs into the mix--they nuke NYC so we nuke Tehran?
> who'll lose more with that math?
>
What in your opinion have we been doing in Iraq to this point if not
punitive raids and attacks? How in your opinion would you fight an
inexhaustible enemy in a hostile country?
> *Will the US eventually have to revert to the fortress America type
> isolationism?
What fortress? Anybody at any time can just walk in
Vichy Europe is almost gone already. They'll be
> majority Moslem within thirty years, assuming they don't have a
> thirty years wars type religious civil war. Yet I think they're
> more likely to just quietly surrender to the islamofascist
> inevitability.
>
Invading Iraq gave them the upper hand. It proved we're a no big deal
adversary and it created chaos in which to breed more islamists. .
> *And by that time, we're likely to be an economic colony of Red
> China, courtesy of the globalists.
>
China started globalizing after Mao died. How would you have stopped them
from becoming a world power?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
