[lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq

  • From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:38:34 -0500

Saddam invaded Kuwait but Bush, Sr. knew that our involvement in that war after 
Gulf I was finished.  Sr.'s administration knew what would happen, which is 
what did happen, all of which is severely against America's interests.  
Everyone in the world didn't believe Saddam had WMD.  In fact, few believed he 
had WMD.  

Because genocide has been humanity's norm means it's okay to do it today?  This 
is your belief?  Where, then, is your civilization?  Also, we stood back while 
Saddam murdered the Kurds and Shiites.  See Galbraith's book, The End of Iraq.  
These are basic facts.  

You might have a case, Lawrence, if we went to war and defeated them.  Instead, 
we went to war and defeated ourselves and bolstered them.  We don't have the 
strategic ability to see that war favors al Qaeda and peace kills al Qaeda, so 
we push for war.  

Looks like you're a neocon even after the neocons abandoned neoconism, and you 
don't like the unpatriotic Leftists who advocated against going in a second 
time (Sr.) and getting out asap this time (Baker).  The more we fight, the 
stronger al Qaeda gets.  We're the only ones who don't see it.  Suskind at the 
end of his book says that OBL spoke to the Americans just before the 2004 
election because he wanted Bush to be reelected. That's how pro-al Qaeda our 
policies are.  Again, Sr. KNEW invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, and 
here we are, living out what he knew would happen.  

We should be so lucky that we'll get a democrat for president.  The problem is, 
the situation is beyond repair even today, and slipping away more and more with 
each passing day, and will continue slipping for another two years. 

This poor country, driven into the ground by the people who supposedly love it. 
 There might be a broader argument here on the nature of love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lawrence Helm 
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 12/13/2006 12:03:51 AM 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq


Mike:
 
Opposing America?s interests and favoring the interests of America?s enemies 
isn?t all the Left does.  
 
Consider one of the Leftist sacred cows: the American Indians.  
 
And give up on Iraq, Mike.  Saddam started everything by invading Kuwait.   
This is the Saddam who frothed at the mouth to get at the Kurds in the North 
and Shiites in the South.  
 
Saddam and his WMDs is a real hoot.  Everyone in the world believed he had 
them.   
 
As to whether the Bush administration did well or poorly in combating Al Quaeda 
and militant Islam, I think they did fairly well.  Given the Militant Islamic 
vaunted chutzpa, taking Afghanistan wouldn?t have been enough, but cowing 
Saddam on top of Afghanistan was enough (see Bowman?s Honor for the development 
of this argument).  What nation after that will attack or challenge America in 
quite that way?  Whoops, I forgot, the Democrats are going to get elected in 
2008 -- all bets are off.  Osama will be watching those elections with extreme 
interests and if a Democrat is elected president as I think she will be: Happy 
days are here again!
 
Lawrence
 
 
 
 
 
 



From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:40 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
 
I'm not sure whether Brian agrees with Zinn or Hitchens.  But it doesn't 
matter.  The Bushies so screwed up the war against Al Queda with their little 
adventure in Iraq that nothing can save it.  A decade or more of horrendous 
civil war is all we have to look forward to now, a war that might well engulf 
the whole of the Middle East -- as they world warned them before their illegal 
invasion.  I say the blood is on our hands as well as on all others who are 
involved in the killing.  I'm guilty by paying my taxes, but I don't have the 
integrity of the brothers Berigan or Thoreau.  It's not my loved ones being 
killed.  Feel terrible about it.  Say so.  Shrug it off.  Go to work.  Life of 
a Liberal.  
 
We started the murder in Iraq.  I agree with Zinn that Bush should be tried by 
an international court and I don't understand how anyone who believes in human 
rights and international law could disagree.
 
Lawrence asks and answers himself: "What is the danger of Leftism today?  They 
represent a political position that is largely anti-American."  Hmmmm.  By 
Lawrence's definition of anti-American.  It's certainly not mine.
 
Mike Geary
Memphis
 
  
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Brian 
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
 
One of the best books I read this year is Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: 
Inside Al Qaeda And The Path to 9/11 and he traces its roots back to Sayyid 
Qutb (who Lawrence Helm has been talking about for some time) and Hassan 
al-Banna?s Muslim Brotherhood.  He contends that Egypt is the cradle of modern 
Islamic terrorism, and Ayman al-Zawahiri's al-Jihad, The Islamic Group 
(responsible for Sadat's assassination) and the Muslim Brothers form the core.  
The victory in Afghanistan against the Soviets emboldened the jihadis and 
showed how many young men were willing to die for the cause.  Martyrdom was the 
product being sold and radicalism filled the gap, with Abdullah Azzam playing a 
primary role on bin Laden's thinking about global jihad.   
 
Shortly after al Qaeda is formed Azzam is killed and it was Azzam that was "was 
in favor of forming a 'pioneering vanguard' along the lines called for by Qutb. 
 It was 'This vanguard constitutes the solid base for the hoped-for society.'"  
Earlier Azzam helped create Hamas, based on the Muslim Brotherhood, with small 
cells no larger than five people, as a counterweight to Yasser Arafat's secular 
PLO.  Bin Laden returns to Saudi Arabia a hero after being in Afghanistan, a 
mythic figure.  And though secretly he praised the U.S. for their help in 
Afghanistan he tentatively started developing his anti-American rhetoric that 
would eventually lead to plans of attack.  He is deeply shamed that the U.S. 
comes to Saudi Arabia's defense against Saddam Hussein and pleads for an 
Islamic only defense, a ridiculous notion in a country that small against a 
military of Iraq's size.  
 
But maybe the most memorable part of the book is his portrayal of the FBI's 
John O'Neil - brought to life by Harvey Keitel in ABC's The Path to 9/11 - who 
was one of the first national intelligence figures who saw the threat of 
international terrorism.  O'Neill was thought crazy for his obsession with bin 
Laden and capturing him and after becoming fed up with the bureaucracy in the 
government he took a job in August '01 as head of security at the WTC and was 
killed in the towers on 9/11.  A good read that took Wright five years of 
research to compile.  The New York Times Review Of Books put it on their Top 10 
of '06 as well.
 
One year ago, last September in New York City, Christopher Hitchens debated 
George Galloway and one of their exchanges really sums up the beliefs of the 
Left concerning the war on terror and how we brought it all on ourselves:
 
Galloway: "9/11 came out of a swamp of hatred created by us".
Hitchens: "You picked the wrong city to say that and the wrong month...This is 
sinister piffle, masochism offered to you by a sadist."
 
Masochism indeed.  Howard Zinn, who doesn't get as much press as Noam Chomsky 
but is surely more read, and readable, was on Dennis Prager's show this year 
and here is part of the exchange:
 
Prager: the idea that the United States is a force for the betterment of 
humanity...what would you say on a report card?we have done more bad than good, 
we?re in the middle or what? 
Zinn: Well, probably more bad than good. We?ve done some good, of course; 
there?s no doubt about that. But we have done too many bad things in the world. 
You know, if you look at the way we have used our armed force throughout our 
history...
 
Prager: Are you prepared to say that war is ever the best moral choice?
Zinn: No
 
Prager: so do you feel that by and large the Zarqawi world and the Bush world 
are moral equivalents?
Zinn: I do. I would put Bush on trial along with Saddam Hussein, because I 
think both of them are responsible for the deaths of many many people in Iraq, 
and uh so yes I think that...killing innocent people is immoral and when Iraqis 
do it, and when we do it it is the same thing.  
 
~Brian
Birmingham, AL
 
On Dec 12, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Lawrence Helm wrote:



Many of the people referring to Al Quaeda don?t understand them.  Al Quaeda did 
not expect effective opposition.  Osama argued (see Osama?s readily available 
speeches, many of which were posted here) that the US would not be able to 
stand against his fierce warriors -- that his Jihad was irresistible.  So it is 
absurd to say that it is only our resistance to Al Quaeda that causes Al 
Quaeda.  To say such things is to foster a mindless political slogan.  It 
doesn?t take much study to realize how false it is.  I wonder why more people 
in this vaunted information age don?t avail themselves of more accurate 
information about Al Quaeda.
What is the danger of Leftism today?  They represent a political position that 
is largely anti-American.  In any conflict, they side with the enemies of the 
US.  They make excuses for the enemy?s excesses and find ways to blame the US 
for them.  Something the US did caused these enemies to be enemies.  They have 
abandoned the traditional American viewpoint that our nation is the best that 
the human race has yet produced.
 

Other related posts: