[lit-ideas] Re: Priorities

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:15:05 -0800

Gad!  I remember in my younger days people told me I was so argumentative,
I'd argue with a tree stump.  When I argue with Andy, I recall those days
:-(

The operative word, Andy is "middle."  There was a major war in Iraq but the
war-part is over.  We are not in the MIDDLE of it any longer.  What is going
on is an insurgent reaction AFTER the war.  Think of the French insurgency
after the Germans defeated the French in WWII (I'm sure you can look that
up).  There had been a war against the French.  It was over.  The French
were defeated, but French resistance (insurgency) fought on.  Think also of
the French war against Germany as a subset of the larger war called World
War II.  The Iraqi war along with the Afghan War are subsets of the War
against Terror.

The Left-Leaning media is getting in the way of "the war."  Yes, the larger
war against Terror.  This is the war we will have to continue to fight until
the Islamists give up their goal of 1) a greater Muslim Arabia as one united
ummah and 2) their conquering of the entire world for Islam (a goal voiced
by Sayyid Qutb and repeated by Osama bin Laden).

The insurgency in Iraq isn't going to succeed but it does provide some doubt
about how well the U.S. is doing in the minds of people who are
anti-American or don't precisely trust America.  If you listen to the
insurgents, they are doing pretty well.  If you listen to the Iraqi and
American forces, it's only a matter of time before they are wiped out -- or
at least reduced to a trickle.

Getting an Iraqi force up to speed has taken some time.  The president spoke
of some failures in that regard -- of some Iraqi units that ran away, but
most of the Iraqi units are learning their trade and the existence of this
force will enable the U.S. to back off at some point and let the Iraqis do
their own policing of insurgents.

Lawrence

-----Original Message-----
From:  Andy Amago

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Helm

Gad!  We are not in the middle of a major war.  


A.A.  Before we go any further, I think you'll have to decide whether we're
in a major war or not.  In previous posts you claimed that 1,300 casualties
is not a lot for a major war.  I can go back and find the posts if you
insist, but for convenience I'll go with Michael Chase's quoting of your
words:


Le 1 janv. 05, 03:55, Lawrence Helm a =E9crit :

>
> The war?  We've removed Saddam Hussein and his army at the expense =
of a
> casualty rate lower than in any major war in history.


Then, repeating the words in this post, you wrote: Gad!  We are not in the
middle of a major war.  


A.A. Okay, Laurence, which one is it?


L.H.   You won't read about warfare
and so believe the silly things you read in the Left-leaning media.  



A.A. Thank God for that Left-leaning media or you would have nothing to
scapegoat.



L.H.  The
war, such as it was is over. We are rounding up a few insurgents.  80% of
Iraq not only supports our efforts but is trying to get up to speed so they
can take care of things without us.  Of the remaining 20%, i.e., the Sunnis,
only the Baathist remnant, the Saddam diehards are engaged in the
insurgency.  They have some support from the Islamists, but how much is
uncertain.



A.A.  If it's no big deal, why aren't the Iraqis handling it by now?




L.H.  In other parts of the world, EU Leftists wonder if our war against
terror is
a real war because there "are only a few thousand" terrorists in existence
on the planet.

Also, I'm not doing any fighting.  Are you?  I did at one time rush off to a
war but I'm not personally fighting one at present. You complain about the
war and then imply that you too are sacrificing in some way.  Insofar as
anyone listens to you, you are only interfering.  The volunteer troops in
Iraq are doing whatever sacrificing is occurring.  



A.A. Again I'm going to ask you to make up your mind.  In other posts you
said the Leftist Media was getting in the way of supporting the war effort.
What did you mean by that?




L.H.  Also, get enough what the first time?  



A.A.  I thought you knew what you were referrring to when you wrote:

"To paraphrase and reapply Nixon's famous exit line, you're going to have
Bush to kick around for four more years!  So I understand that you need to
take your political pleasures where you can find them.  In four years, after
Hillary has taken office, it will be our turn :-("


So, answering your question, get enough of kicking Hillary [and Bill] around
the first time.



L.H.  A few insults and disjointed
irrelevancies?  



A.A. I would say dragging the president of the U.S. through impeachment
after a $40 million investigation that wound up in a dead end is a bit more
than a number of insults and disjointed irrelevancies.    



L.H.  I complained at the time that you couldn't mount an argument
and you responded with a few more insults and irrelevancies.  Yeah, I
suppose you are going to give me some more of those.  I can hardly wait.



A.A.  Maybe you can't mount an argument because you're not sure what side of
your mouth you're talking out of.  First you claim it's not a major war, now
it a major war.  First the media are impeding the war effort, now there is
no war effort.  Which one is it?  The fact remains that Bush is throwing a
$40 million party while our boys and girls are dying in Iraq.  There's no
point in even mentioning the hell that we're putting the Iraqis through
simply getting their kids to school without being kidnapped or killed by a
car bomb.  Great time for a $40 million party.  


Andy Amago




Lawrence Helm
Sgt. USMC

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 7:10 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Priorities

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Dec 31, 2004 5:07 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Priorities

To paraphrase and reapply Nixon's famous exit line, you're going to have
Bush to kick around for four more years!  So I understand that you need to
take your political pleasures where you can find them.  In four years, after
Hillary has taken office, it will be our turn :-(



A.A.  Just didn't get enough the first time around.  BTW, why do you think
Bush is having a gigantic party while we are in the middle of a major war,
as you say.  Where is the shared sacrifice?  


Andy Amago



Lawrence

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robert Paul
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 12:21 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Priorities

On 28 December I wrote:

"So far the United States has donated or pledged, mostly through relief 
agencies,
$35 million in aid for those areas devastated by the tsunami."

I then went on to contrast this with the amount to be spent on Bush's
inauguration.

In fairness, I should note, as I'm sure everyone is aware, that today the US
has
pledged $350 million in relief funds. Whether the inauguration committee
will
feel it has to keep up is another matter. 

(Sorry, Lawrence, I couldn't resist.)

Robert Paul
The Reed Institute

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
 

------------------------------------------------------------------
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: