[lit-ideas] Re: Why us?
- From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:24:12 +0100 (BST)
>Leaving Iraq immediately would spare lots of money and troops, but
>probably cause many more Iraqi deaths and give the terrorists greater
>incentive, especially if the terrorists believed that their actions,
>rather than US internal political mood, had effected the ouster.
and that is -- for opponents of the war, well, for opponents of my persuasion
-- the hellish thing; but as The Guardian reported the day before the bombing,
and as has been confirmed today, the US and UK are in large part getting out
("were"?!); UK troops are moving to Afghanistan, US troops going home (for
economic reasons).
Eric Yost <Mr.Eric.Yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
RP: Pointing to Bush's failings serves no useful purpose.
JM: What would count as a "useful purpose"? As a political activist, I
find it useful in several ways, keeping supporters whipped up, damaging
the reputation of the "at best deluded and incompetent and at worst
malign" leader of our opposition, etc.
Eric: To confine the point successfully is to confine the definition of
"usefulness."
I propose that "useful" refer to (1) reducing terrorism or (2) improving
the state of affairs in Iraq or even the greater Middle East.
Sure, Bush-bashing is useful to those of us who would prefer the GOP
ousted. However, it has no positive effect on the two terms above, does it?
Impeaching Bush and electing a total cut-and-run US President wouldn't
help. Leaving Iraq immediately would spare lots of money and troops, but
probably cause many more Iraqi deaths and give the terrorists greater
incentive, especially if the terrorists believed that their actions,
rather than US internal political mood, had effected the ouster.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
