Brilliantly, sadly observed

[Steven Koteff]

Mark, (and everybody), thanks for participating on this.

For what it's worth, I'm still reading, and will keep doing so as long as
anybody still feels like posting.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151205/14d91656/attachment.html>