> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ritu > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:07 AM > To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' > Subject: RE: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
> Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have > covered this ground earlier, before the invasion. We have, and I think there is a reasonable view that might address some of what you and some of what JDG argues for. Which probably means that neither of y'all will like it. I believe that we have responsibility for our actions and for our inactions. But, the type of responsibility we have varies with how directly we are the agents of the results of our actions/inactions. For example, the responsibility the United States has for the action of its soldiers is greater than the responsibility it has for the actions of the militia that are torturing and killing wantonly in Iraq. It would not be reasonable to argue that the US soldiers torture and kill Iraqi's less than Hussein's men as a defense for the morality of US actions in Iraq. It would, however, be reasonable to argue that, while there is wanton murder by some, the levels are lower than what they were before. To use a separate example, crimes committed by members of the police are not an acceptable tool of law enforcement. But, at the same time, the crime rate in a city need not be zero for us to consider the new police strategy to be a success because crime rates have been lowered by it. Turning back to the question we argued before the 2nd Iraq war, those like me who argued against going in needed to accept the consequences of Hussein remaining in power as a result of the path we favored being taken. By the same token, those who favored invasion need to accept the consequences of that invasion. Now, I'll admit that a reasonable person could have thought Bush would have handled things better than he did, but I do think that my initial prediction that we'd win the initial conflict and bungle managing the peace afterwards (with a civil war as a real risk) turned out to be generally accurate. So, I'd argue that those who argue for invading Iraq must accept the consequences of that action being taken in the exact same sense that those of us who opposed going in needed to accept the consequences of the continued rule of Hussein. Neither side needed to want the bad consequences of their chosen path...they just needed to accept the responsibility inherent in choosing those consequences instead of others. In doing so, "the other alternatives were all worse" would be a valid argument. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
