**Might this then (currently) qualify as a war of "attrition"?? TC, /Steve Cameron, NJ Lawrence Helm wrote: > 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html