[lit-ideas] Re: U.N. Special Committee on Palestine
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:24:30 -0700
Good grief, Irene. Militant Islam is huge. Removing one part of it doesn't
necessarily hurt another. You'd need another argument to support that. This
isn't a zero sum prospect. For example, if the USMC and the Army were
fighting against nation X and you removed the Army from the Battle, would
that hurt or help the USMC? In a sense there are less fighters involved and
so removing the army can be said to hurt the U.S., but does it hurt the
USMC? Not ruddy likely. That is the sense in which I referred to the
removal of Saddam as hurting Militant Islam. He was looked up to by many
Islamists. He was one of their heroes. He challenged the US and pursued
pan-Arabian ambitions. It was a blow to Militant Islam that a major hero, a
major force was removed. Was it a blow to Iran? Not necessarily, at least
not from their standpoint, but read on.
You keep denigrating the US efforts in Iraq using only anti-American
sources. Ahmadinejad himself said, when he was head of the Republican
guard, that the conquering of Iraq and the possibility of democracy
developing there was extremely dangerous for Iran. If democracy caught on
in Iraq it was sure to spread and endanger their entire revolution. For
that reason Iran has opposed the efforts to inculcate democracy in Iraq, as
has Al Quaeda, as have Islamists everywhere, and as have Leftists
everywhere. It is a life and death struggle for Militant Islam. They dare
not let democracy succeed in Iraq.
The suicidal self-destructive views of the Left cause it to oppose democracy
in Iraq. They want the US to abandon Iraq so it can revert to some sort of
authoritarian rule after a civil war. They want the US out so that militant
Islamic organizations can exert greater influence. They want the US out so
that they can claim that democracy is a hopeless trick of the West and that
only a government like the Islamic Republic in Iran should be emulated.
After thinking it over I've decided to convert to Irene's viewpoint and
support the Left. Let them win. Let them get the US out of Iraq and
Islamism in. Let Iran get atomic weapons. For if the Left gets all it
wants then we shall have the "war war war" that I've been hoping for. If on
the other hand we were to support democracy in Iraq and stay there until it
succeeds then it would be extremely damaging to Islamism, especially Iran
and we should probably not have a war because Iran would have to worry about
all the Iranians wanting democracy just like the nation next door, and I
would miss out on my war war war. How boring!
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 1:47 PM
To: lit-ideas
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: U.N. Special Committee on Palestine
Among others, you quote on 7/20/06:
"Prior to our invasion of Iraq, I discussed Sandra Mackeys 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 Saddams 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
Sunnis 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."
Removing Saddam was a blow to Militant Islam? Therefore, we hurt Iran by
it, yes?
From the 21st: "You've got to get inside a twisted Leftist viewpoint and
then further twist something I said to see the humor in that, Omar. It
took me several seconds. Only a Leftist would say that Bush was as bad for
the U.S. as Hamas was for Israel. Bush has been in the vanguard of the
fight against Militant Islam so of course (according to Leftist and
Islamist party lines) he is a disaster, but Conservatives don't have that
problem with him. They wonder if he is doing enough to fight militant
Islam. Some of them don't like all of his Social policies but thats
another subject."
Aside from the abbreviated effort in Afghanistan, Bush's war on terror is
nearly entirely in having removed Saddam from power and opened up hell.
You say that Bush has been in the vanguard of the fight against Militant
Islam. Which of his actions are you specifically referring to? It's
pretty widely accepted now that Bush's foreign policies have been
catastrophic, especially those in the M.E. What is your position on the
war in Iraq and Saddam's removal from power? If the mighty U.S. removing
Saddam from power was such a blow to Militant Islam, why is Hezbollah not
shaking in its boots, and why is there not even an inch of progress toward
peace in the M.E.?
> [Original Message]
> From: Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 7/29/2006 3:54:31 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: U.N. Special Committee on Palestine
>
> What quote of mine do you have in mind when you say "Lawrence thinks
> removing Saddam hurt Iran," Irene? For the life of me I can't recall
saying
> that. Help me out here.
>
> Lawrence
>
Other related posts:
