Re: Nov 11th input of "Sinclair" of labehotiere

[Joe Erkes <erkesjoe@nycap.rr.com>]

Sinclair,

At the risk of starting yet another "flame war" (and once again irritating
my Sinclair cousins), thou "doth protest too much, methinks".

Sandy Sinclair's summarization of the sentiments you expressed in your
original post was pretty much on target. Your subsequent historical summary
(below) is of course quite correct factually, but appears to to me to be
intended to distract attention from your original (relatively inflammatory)
remarks. 

I would also gently point out that you were wrong in your pre-war assessment
of the probable outcome* of the Afghanistan regime change, and humbly assert
that you are once again wrong in your pre-war assessment of the probable
outcome of the Iraqi regime change.  The citizens of Afghanistan have
welcomed the regime change, (except for those warlords and radical imams
whose livelihood has been terminated), and so will the citizens of Iraq.
Make no mistake.  Hitler had nothing on Saddam, and most Iraqis will breathe
a deep sigh of relief when he is gone.

Best of all, the potential for leakage of weapons of mass destruction to
fanatical terrorist groups will be reduced, at least for a bit.  We will all
be able to breathe a bit easier.

Joe Erkes

* You predicted that a war in Afghanistan would result in massive allied
(and Afghanistani) losses, and in ultimate ignominious failure and retreat.
As I dimly recall, you analogized the Afghanistan regime change with
Alexander's difficulties in the region, Vietnam, the failed British colonial
occupation and the disastrous USSR occupation.  As events have amply
demonstrated, history doesn't always repeat itself.  ;-)


PS I am AB+ and my kids are A? And B? respectively.... correct Rh factors to
follow.


> Dear Mrs Sandy Sinclair
> 
> 
> Your defence of my freedom of speech is stirring and I do thank you for
> that. I respect your ideas but you have however performed the bowdlerisation
> of my statements neatly.
> 
> I had written "We, as victors, imposed a humiliation of the vanquished that
> allowed the rise of Hitler" How that statement can be related to your
> statement, "Ex.  The deeds of Hitler were caused by the humiliation of the
> Treaty of WW I. (No truth to this statement. It was his personal decision to
> put forth a Super Race to conquer the world as well as to annihilate 9

[ Excess quotations omitted. ]


[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html