1. THE US MUST WITHDRAW NOW
2. WITHDRAWAL IS NOT ENOUGH
3. AN INTERIM, MORE NEUTRAL ADMINISTRATION MUST BE CREATED TO PROVIDE ESSENTIAL POLICE AND SOCIAL SERVICES BEFORE WITHDRAWAL IS COMPLETE
4. THE US SHOULD FUND THIS ADMINISTRATION AND IRAQI RECONSTRUCTION WITH NO STRINGS AID
If you hae a problem with the position, attack the position Michael P, Shane, Ulhas,a nd I actually maintain.
Though Yoshie's objective position is the the US should remain until the Iraqis are strong and organized enough to throw them oute.
jks
--- jbujes at covad.net wrote:
> So the argument is that the U.S. cannot withdraw
> because that would leave Iraq in
> total chaos.
>
> Translation:
>
> (1. Destroying Saddam's regime was good no matter
> who did it or why.)
>
> 2. Although the Iraqis were far from grateful, we
> can't leave now because if we did,
> the country would lapse into war-lord-driven chaos.
>
> 3. The U.N. should come in and sort it out.
>
> 4. ...and some suggested that the U.S. should pay
> reparations.
>
> While I agree with the last point, I am confused by
> the calculus of 1-3. I
> especially disagree with 1) which seems to lay the
> "moral" foundation for everything
> that follows.
>
> I mean, invasions inevitably bring chaos, which
> inevitably bring the call for order,
> which is inevitably implemented by the occupying
> force, according to their notions
> of order.
>
> To say that the U.S. must stay because otherwise the
> country would dissolve in
> further chaos or to say that the U.N. must now
> intervene to restore order -- is to
> let the U.S. off the hook for the original savage,
> unfounded act of aggression and,
> really, to blame the victim.
>
> Joanna
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
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