[MD] Intellect battles the [immigrant] barbarians

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo]
> If you're intent on offering more proof of how you do nothing but
> distort, you're doing a great job. First, I said I doubt we played the
> arms game out of a "noble effort to contain Iran", but EVEN IF WE DID,
> the way we went about it was immoral. But I love the "So you don't think
> we should have contained Iran?" distortion. 

No distortion. You implied we should have done nothing because without 
our arms support, Iraq would have likely been occupied by Iran. I guess 
you forgot about Iran's criminal holding of our diplomats hostage for a 
year under the feckless Jimmy Carter. 

> [Platt]
> As for the immorality of war, I suggest you read Pirsig's views on 
> society's role in keeping the biological  level under control, a role
> that intellectuals often ignore. War is not for the dainty.
> 
> [Arlo]
> We were not "at war". We supplied arms (including the means to deploy
> CHEMICAL WEAPONS) to a brutal dictator, and all the while supplied arms
> to the FUNDAMENTALIST REGIME with no regard to the thousands and
> thousands killed, because it served our ECONOMIC interests to do so. If
> you consider that "moral", then I think its obvious who needs to read
> Pirsig, perhaps you should start with ZMM, the "path to enlightment".

To prevent Iran from occupying Iraq and a large part of the Middle 
East, and vice versa, I consider what we did moral on the MOQ grounds 
of society having the right and obligation to keep barbaric biological 
forces in check.

> [Platt]
> What is the morality of surrendering a fledgling democracy to
> barbarians? I know I won't get answers. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> What would be the point if you did? If my reply had even a HINT of
> criticism of the Morally Holy Republican Warriors of Freedom, all you'd
> do is engage in the same crap that you do above.

Funny. Whenever you are challenged, you call it crap, the sort of 
argument you would expect from a third grader.  

> But, what the hell. First I think at this point its obvious a unified
> Iraq is impossible (can you say Yugoslavia?). So divide the nation into
> smaller countries. Without the internal hatred among factions, each
> nation can secure itself quicker and easier, and we can get our troops
> out of there sooner. Then we turn back over to each nation, all rights,
> mineral and natural, within its borders to that nation. Any further aid
> we give these countries should be in the form of food, medical,
> educational and informational  resources- loan free, but in the form of
> semi-permanent UN military bases along certain border regions. I think
> given the sorry state of affairs at present, that's about the best we
> hope for.

Sounds like the Biden plan which will simply extend the conflict, only 
now instead of between factions it would be between nations with all 
the rights of self-defense and arms build up that such a division would 
allow under the U.N. Charter, making the conflict a hundred times 
worse. Of course, any moral attempt to extend liberty and democratic 
intellectual values to the region would go by the way side.

My solution is to follow the Abe Lincoln example by firing the 
ineffective generals. Put leaders in there who are willing to kick butt 
and stop playing P.C. Patsy with terrorists. 

We will see how it plays out. Either way I think more troops will be 
needed.

Platt