[lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:54:58 -0800

Osama bin Laden and the Islamists understand how important Iraq is.  They
are opposing us there with all they have.  It is complicated, but I could
refer you to several books on the matter if you are interested.  For
example, the founder of Stratfor, the private organization that provides
Intelligence info to companies and other interested in international
affairs, George Friedman in America's Secret War, Inside the Hidden
Worldwide Struggle between America and its Enemies, describes how the
removal of Saddam's regime was important in the war against the Islamists.  


See also, Kennet Pollack's The Treatening Storm, the Case for Invading
Iraq., The Reckoning, Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein by Sandra
Mackey, and The Pentagon's New Map, War and Peace in the Twenty-First
Century by Thomas Barnett.







From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 6:29 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape


I completely fail to understand how opposing the Islamists has anything to
do with attacking Iraq or ousting Sadaam.  He was a secularist, and what we
have done is open the country to waves of Islamists who have footholds and
bases for their agendas.  If you support the war on Iraq for other reasons,
fine.  But I don't think you can make the case that attacking Iraq was an
opposition to the Islamists.


Julie Krueger

========Original Message======== 


[lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape


1/20/06 8:04:47 PM Central Standard Time





Sent on:    


We have an enemy: the Islamists.  The Islamists want to conquer us.  We need
to oppose them.


If you disagree you should logically argue that we don't need to oppose them
or that they don't want to conquer us.


If we aren't opposing them as well as we ought, that doesn't detract from
the argument that we ought to oppose them.  Although I did mention it as an
aside, the people are being provided with faulty information by the media.
I blame the media and the people for that.  The media for being perverse and
the people for being gullible, but I am not surprised by any it.  We will
(as a people) eventually learn that the enemy is to be taken seriously -
that he does want to conquer us.  It took a lot of blood to get us into both
World Wars.  We probably need to bleed a bit more before we develop
enthusiasm for this one, but notice that Osama does intend to make us bleed.





From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:44 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape


Okay, let's cut the leadership some slack.  It's all the people's fault that
we lost this war.  Let's blame them instead.  It wasn't Napoleon's fault
that he lost (or won).  It was the French people, right?   So let me get
this straight.  This is a necessary war, but not an important one.  Is that
right?  And kindly point out the bothersome non sequiturs.  



----- Original Message ----- 

From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  Helm 

To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: 1/20/2006 8:38:47 PM 

Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape


You are giving me a headache with your non sequiturs.  I didnt discuss the
importance, but I do believe it is a necessary war.  It can become more
important if we dilly dally and let them win more than we ought to let them
win.  You have introduced several tangents which dont seem important.  We
have an implacable enemy.  We may or may not be fighting him as
enthusiastically as we ought.  From the fact that so many people want us to
withdraw prematurely from Iraq (to the delight of Osama) it is clear that
millions dont understand the importance of fighting this enemy.   So
perhaps the people you refer to as not doing something right ought to be
given some slack for not fighting them as well as they might.  





From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:25 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape


Well, if it was such an important war, why wasn't it fought more seriously?
Why did the Army have to laugh at their proposal and insist on a larger army
than what Rove & Co. wanted, and still be nowhere close to what was needed?
Why was there no plan for after Baghdad fell?  Why did we go to war with the
army we had instead of the army we needed (a paraphrase)?  Why cut taxes
when the money is needed for military spending to fund the army to fight
this war that we need so desperately?  Yadda yadda.  In short, why was it
not waged as if it was an important war?  If you say it was the Democrats'
fault, then you're passing the buck.  The Republicans run the show and he
had everybody's approval in any case.



Other related posts: