[lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:50:11 -0800
Go back and read what I said about why we invaded Iraq. You want me to
respond to a strawman argument that is easily defeated and has been many
times. Just a hint for you: Paul Berman a legitimate Liberal has been
outraged by all those claiming to be liberal who didn't want to get rid of
Saddam Hussein all along. He doesn't think anyone who thinks Iraq would be
better off if we left Saddam in place deserves to be called a Liberal. To
want to leave a brutal tyrant in charge of a nation, Berman, stridently
reminds us, is not a liberal position. Liberals don't believe in keeping
brutal dictators in place.
The Iraqi leadership and the majority of all those in Iraq are not religious
fundamentalists, but we should as I urge understood what these
fundamentalists have argued and will argue if we leave prematurely.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ursula Stange
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:29 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
LH wrote
...much snipped...
If when we leave, the Islamic Fundamentalists can declare victory, that
is if we don't leave the present Iraqi government in a very strong
position, then we shall be buying trouble for ourselves. As Barnett
suggests, we shall probably have to go back again. We won't save money
by leaving prematurely.
-------------------------
Lawrence, I snipped most of your post because it's only this bit I want
to respond to. And I don't know where to begin.
First, don't you think about the fact that the Islamic Fundamentalists
are the Shiites -- the very people the Americans trusted the government
to? The very people who are protecting (if not organizing) the
fundamentalist militias? And now we need to work to secure their
positions? So they can keep the Shiites from declaring victory?
Second, isn't there some sense of morality that should have a place on
this stage? You trashed a country in order to oust its leader. You
didn't just kill his children or ruin his life. You trashed a country.
And now you want to arrange the country so that those in power will
favour you with their favours? What of the ordinary Iraqis -- the
children, the grandmothers, the young brides, the schoolboys? Who cares
to protect them? In the end, you're going to sign off on a
fundamentalist dictatorship in exchange for the peace that passeth oil.
And it will put the women back in burqas and the prostitutes in sand up
to their necks. Wait...isn't this why we chased the Taliban out of
Afghanistan? I'm getting confused again...
Ursula
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
