[lit-ideas] Re: Hezbollah is here in U.S.
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:49:17 -0400
We may have a competent U.S. military, but we'll never know because of the
civilians who are running it, as the Constitution says they should. It wasn't
a case of not being gentle, it was a case of acting out of a clueless
ideological haze. Saddam was a counterbalance to Iran. We supported and armed
him for a reason. That hardly inspires visions of gentleness. Saddam
patterned himself on Stalin, hardly an Islamist. Even if Saddam supported
Militant Islam, an assertion similar to the U.S. felling the USSR, Saddam
supported the Islamists with what? Palaces? He had no weapons and the
sanctions had him collared, even if at great expense to the Iraqi people, a
time that was a paradise compared to what they have now.
When asked about illegal aliens you once said "yawn". It's okay to change your
mind.
The Wahhabis are not nice people, but there are plenty of not nice people in
the world. To run around exterminating them all is unrealistic and
counterproductive. To even use the word exterminate is to ally yourself with
Stalin or Saddam or anyone who advocates genocide. There's always a reason
given for genocide.
Our enemy is big business' ownership of Congress that insists on open borders;
extreme debt and empty pockets that keep us beholden to others; tax cuts for
the wealthy while the country goes sharecropper (Warren Buffett's words, not
mine); a reliance on foreign oil (more big business ownership of Congress; our
president is an oil man); and other things that the Wahhabis are a distraction
from. Had we been fixing up our own country instead of running around the
world trying to dominate it, things would be different. Do I sound like a
Conservative? I guess I do. Also, we need a president who actually likes this
country instead of putting his affiliation with the global ultra wealthy elite,
a president who will spearhead programs to support the country instead of
eviscerate it, like not giving away the treasury, like not insisting on tearing
down SS, like reining in pharma instead of telling them to help themselves to
taxpayers' money, and on and on.
For Stan, I don't have time to read the article now but, yes, I have heard that
Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are afraid of the fundamentalists. That's all
the more reason to wonder why there was a military response instead of taking
advantage of this fear and using it to mutual advantage. Stranger alliances
have happened in the past. Did the military-solution-to-everything, don't
talk, just hit, climate make it a desirable option? Or might it be part of
the living out of a mythology, the Israelis as some sort of breed of superior
warrior? Mythologies and ideologies are dangerous things. Forcing people to
do things, even when it's possible, is much less effective than getting people
to do things because they want to. That's stating the obvious, but obviously
not so obvious since it is unknown to the powers that be. All right, that's
it, gotta go.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 7/20/2006 1:44:57 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hezbollah is here in U.S.
Irene,
Prior to our invasion of Iraq, I discussed Sandra Mackey?s book. She argued
that Saddam kept the Shiites and Kurds dominated with domestic terror and that
if we conquered it that would be our greatest challenge -- to create something
that would work as well. She argued that the Shiites might take the
opportunity to get even for the years of Saddam?s tyrannical abuse. Iraq was
the shame of the Middle east and also, according to Paul Berman, the shame of
Liberals who didn?t support his removal. Yes, the Sunni?s are the resurgents.
Yes, they did much better when Saddam was running things. Yes, they would like
to be in control again. Yes, some of them feel they have nothing to lose by
fighting on. Yes, many of them are happy Al Quaeda is helping them. All this
is well known. Nevertheless, Saddam was a major force in Militant Islam. For
many reasons he was a prominent player. Removing Saddam was a blow to Militant
Islam.
I notice that right after a note in which I indicated that I favored diplomacy
you say ?war as a first resort, which of course you favor.? Do you wonder that
I say you don?t pay any attention to what I write? (Or is this your split
personality at work?)
The U.S. using Israel to attack Iran? This is the sort of thing an extreme
Leftist or an Islamist would say. In their conspiracy theories they spend half
their time saying that the U.S. runs Israel and the other half that Israel runs
the U.S. It is all nonsense Irene. If you want to say Iran is running
Hezbollah you would be onto something. The U.S. can influence Israel up to a
point, but they can?t tell Israel not to defend itself.
Irene. Good grief. Hezbollah was lobbing rockets into Israel. They invaded
Lebanon to stop Hezbollah?s attack. There was a treaty that specified that
Lebanon would not allow a terrorist organization on its soil to do just what
Hezbollah is doing. Through Syria?s influence Lebanon backed out of the treaty
that Lebanon and Israel signed. There wasn?t anything Israel really wanted to
do about it until Hezbollah attacked them. Israel has a policy of trying to
get their soldiers back at all cost, but the primary reason for the invasion is
that Hezbollah has been bombing the heck out of Israel with rockets.
Iran is already in the regional conflict. Iran created Hezbollah. They armed
it and financed it.
You talk about my understanding being skewed. What is the superior standpoint
from which you make that judgment? I have heard very little about your
reading. How is it that you know the truth while I struggle along in my skewed
ignorance trying to read one expert after another only to be deceived time and
time and end up skewered by Irene?
Back to reality: get your focus off of 9/11. We are at war not with the
perpetrator?s of 9/11 but with MILITANT ISLAM! You denigrate the ideology that
began with the Wahhabis, but when you do that you cut yourself off from
understanding. You won?t understand MILITANT ISLAM until you read its history,
especially its ideologists. Reading these ideologists isn?t going to skew you.
It is going to tell you what every Militant Islamist knows and you don?t. It
will tell you why they are dead set on conquering first Arabia (Saddam was an
ardent Pan-Arabist) and then moving outward conquering all the land that they
lost to the infidel and then outward still until the entire world bows its knee
to Allah
You think we are militarily incompetent? You live in a world of Leftist
denial. We have the most competent military that has ever existed and this can
be demonstrated by any objective standard. Our wars in the Middle East were
models of text-book efficiency. What you want to criticize is our mistaken
gentleness with the survivors. Although you would almost certainly be
criticizing something else if we were ruthless with them. The administration
probably thought it was the politically correct thing to be gentle and give
them a chance to join the Iraqi democracy. That gentleness hasn?t born fruit.
Also, you overrate stability. A stable Iraq and Afghanistan bent upon doing us
or our allies harm is far worse (from our strategic standpoint) than an
unstable Iraq and Afghanistan incapable of doing us harm.
As to our borders, I hear terrorists are entering our country over our borders.
And in previous notes I said let?s close them off! You commented about that
Irene. You accused me of changing my mind, but now you say ?yet you see none
of this.? Was it one of your split personalities who commented upon my earlier
note, remarking that I had changed my mind and a different personality which
now says I am opposed to preventing terrorists entering?
You say you are going to stop ?with reality.? Irene, I am quite convinced that
you are stopping well short of that.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
