[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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