--- John Mage <jmage at panix.com> wrote:
> justin writes:
> > That's unfair, John; I am certain that Nathan is
> not arguing for
> > continued US occupation. He is rather pointing
> out that a simple
> > withdrawal, without making some sort of
> arrangements through the UN
> > or theArab League or someone for the provision of
> basic services and
> > an interim administration in the nation whose
> govt we have now ruined
> > would lkead toa narchy in the bad sense, mere
> chaos. jks
>
> To argue against withdrawing the occupation forces
> is to argue for a
> continued occupation. As it is the occupation forces
> are daily killing
> (without judicial process) and daily are getting
> killed. It might get
> worse or it might get better were this lawless
> occupation immediately to
> end. There is nothing inadequate about the Iraqis
> that guarantees it
> would get worse. No-one can say they will permit
> their neighbors to
> starve. It's not up to Nathan (or Dr. Dean) to
> decide that it's in the
> best interests of the Iraqis that the occupation
> continue. The argument
> that such a decision has been made by the Iraqis
> themselves can't be
> made by anyone wishing to be taken seriously.
>
> Of course no arrangements of the sort you suggest
> can be made without US
> agreement, so once the US decides to carry out a
> complete, immediate and
> unilateral withdrawal from Iraq such arrangements
> would follow as night
> the day. But to call for a continued occupation
> until such arrangements
> are made (which the US can prevent at will) gives a
> blank check to the
> aggressor states to continue the occupation.
>
> john mage
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com