Brilliantly, sadly observed

[Mark Kohut]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n24/james-meek/a-raqqa-of-the-mind

I think I'm done posting on this topic.
We know where we stand (as Bartleby is always saying).

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> Well I was clearly wrong in my memory of the verifiable timeline. Still, if,
> as the article indicates, it is widely believed in the region that we did Ok
> the Iraqi attack, and it is known that we then did support this war. The
> effective message combined with other US actions are that power is achieved
> with war. Not that we invented this particular idea.
>
> The thing that I see is the parallel between Wahabi notions of divine war of
> the faithful, and our notions of being appointed to bring the true way
> through strategic bombing. Both sides seem to have found good reasons to
> think of the other as demonic. They are beliefs that are equally insane, and
> equally violent and destructive  in their net effect.  I don’t know what
> will work but check out this interview with a captive of ISIS.
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nicolas-henin-the-man-who-was-held-captive-by-isis-for-10-months-says-how-they-can-be-defeated-a6757336.html
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 4:54 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I hope, Joseph, that you are willing to concede this point to continue the
> debate.
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> By the way, the same article in Wikipedia said that it is commonly believed
> in the gulf states that the US did give the go ahead to Saddam. So the net
> impact of our policies is in line with what I said in my list.
>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>
>> This is from Wikipedia
>> However I appear to have overstated the case with insufficient evidence
>> and  to have been off in my timeline. Imperfect memory.  Still, once we gave
>> our support to this venture, the net effect within my larger argument that
>> the US was endorsing the seizure of territory remains intact.
>>
>>   United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against
>> post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic
>> aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military
>> intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare
>> against Iran.[3][4]
>>
>> Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently
>> discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On
>> June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline that the "Reagan/Bush
>> administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money,
>> agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to
>> Iraq."[5]
>>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This isn't as wrong as it could possibly be, but it's getting there. Keep
>>> plugging.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>> We supplied weapons, advisors and as the global superpower fully endorsed
>>> it. If we had not done so it is highly doubtful that Saddam would have
>>> started it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:14 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What US policies in particular led to the creation of ISIS?  1)we ok’d
>>>> the idea of seizing land through war by provoking and helping the Iraqi war
>>>> on Iran
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We ok'd it?  How about the fact that the two nations were generally
>>>> hostile toward one another for a long time. How about Islam? The Bath party
>>>> was rightfully fearful that Khomeini would stir up rebellion in southern
>>>> Iraq. How about territorial disputes, especially the conflict over the Shatt
>>>> al-'Arab River.
>>>>
>>>> The dispute over the Shatt Al-Arab waterway threatens once more to
>>>> derail the peace talks between Iraq and Iran, and could ultimately end the
>>>> truce between the two countries. However, as this historical account shows,
>>>> the controversy involving this shallow, 127-mile-long strategic waterway has
>>>> been the subject of treaties signed in 1843, 1937, and 1975, and continues
>>>> to loom as an intractable problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.wrmea.org/1989-april/the-shatt-al-arab-obstacle-to-iran-iraq-peace.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>
>>
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l