I wonder how this will be accepted by the American population. So far, it's only in the New Yorker and very few people read that.
How will the general US population feel when they realize Bush is arming the fundamentalist Islamic jihadi, the very same people who destroyed the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 Americans?
It will be quite interesting. yrs, andreas www.andreas.com----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:15 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: For Lawrence
Lawrence hedges carefully. Either the Bushies are doing this. Or they're not.- If Bush is indeed supporting al Qaeda groups, Lawrence sees that as realpolitik and thus acceptable. The jihadi are our friends, the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers.- Lawrence also thinks (and hopes) Hersh may be wrong, so the jihadi are still the enemy of mankind. He can continue listening to his favorite band "The Clash" (L's fave song: "Rock the Casbah").What a paradox! From either position, the other is utterly unacceptable.This will be resolved soon. Cheney wants to attack Iran. Next year is election year, so the Republicans won't let him start a new war. A war must be started this year in the spring or early summer. By mid-summer, it's too late because winter is coming. So if there is to be a war with Iran, it will start in the next few months.Anyway, we'll soon get confirmation about Bush and the jihadi. Lawrence warns us against militant Islam, yet in a matter of weeks, he could be lecturing us to support the jihadi.yrs, andreas www.andreas.com----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:32 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: For LawrenceThe article http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh is actually very interesting, but I smelled something funny when I printed it out. It was more than ten pages long. The idea that two radical Leftists could read anything that long was inconceivable -- as is born out by the fact that neither Simon nor Andreas developed anything from the article beyond a couple of misleading taunts.But the article is worth reading. Something is going on, and it does seem as though the Bush administration is giving up on Neocon idealism and moving back to realpolitik. Andreas and Simon won't recall because my notes were much too long, but one of my arguments against the simplistic and unsupported "we are losing," was that we didn't need for Iraq to be transformed into a viable democracy to "win." Our goal pertained to the security of American and allied interests. We secured those in regard to Iraq when we elminitated the control of a disruptive dictatorship. Yes, the Neocons wanted to export democracy and more power to them if they could pull it off, but if not, our primary goal could be achieved by a near-democracy, a benign dictarorship or a sunni/shiite/kurd split. So that part of the article was neither new nor a surprise.Now as to the dalliance with anti-Shiite forces one place and anti-Sunni forces another, that isn't beyond the realm of possibility when one is engaging in realpolitik. However, realpolitik involves the willing participation of temporary allies, and it seem difficult to keep sworn enemies as our uncomplaining allies. While it wouldn't be suprising if a post-Neocon Bush administration were to resort to realpolitik, the Hersh description would imply that the administration is playing a very dangerous version of the game. We might have to choose sides before its done, either Sunni or Shiite, and if Sunni, then what will the Shiite Iraqis think, and if Shiite, what will our old Saudi realpolitik allies think?However, some of Hersh's facts have been challenged by Michael Young, the Opinion Editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon, a newspaper Omar recently directed me to. The following article is from Reason Online, and is entitled "A Muckraker on the Wane?" and subtitled "Does the New Yorker actually edit Seymour Hersh?" You can find Young's article at http://www.reason.com/news/show/118922.htmlLawrence ------------Original Message------------ From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Sat, Mar-10-2007 2:22 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: For Lawrence Here Lawrence: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh Read the Hersh article and then perhaps you'll comment.----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 10:14 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: For Lawrence Is it a fact? I missed seeing your supporting evidence. On the face of it, it doesn't sound plausible. Lawrence ------------Original Message------------ From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Sat, Mar-10-2007 1:21 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] For Lawrence Simon, We've brought this up at least three times. Lawrence has not replied once. Not once. Lawrence, what do you say to the fact that the Bush White House is now arming al Qaeda-affiliated jihadi groups? yrs, andreas www.andreas.com----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 11:57 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Nuclear Responsibility and Iran"...al-Qaeda and affiliated jihadis are much more of a threat than anyone we've faced." A threat so serious that the Whitehouse is allegedely channeling funds to Sunni Jihadist Groups in Lebanon. Is that because the Bush Administration has a death wish (perhaps a Rapture Wish), or maybe because the threat isn't actually there. You Decide------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
