> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jdiebremse > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 6:48 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Those who can't, teach > > > > If changing the way you think means taking the easy way out, and leaving > tens of millions of people to additional suffering, then I don't > agree.... >
I don't think there is an easy way out. While optimistic scenarios still have a slim chance of panning out, that chance continues to decrease. Let me first answer what appears to be an implied question in your statement. If, by staying and spending hundreds of billions more and losing thousands more of our own troops, we could forestall a disastrous civil war for the Iraqi people and help them obtain a stable government with some civil rights for all citizens....then I'd say we would have a moral obligation to pay that price and stay. Our mistakes over the past 3.5 years have resulted in a lot of suffering and death, and, if possible, we'd have a moral obligation to eliminate future suffering. But, as that likelihood of that scenario playing out continues to decrease, then we need, IMHO, to consider the first rules of holes: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. I think we've reached a point where we cannot stop a civil war from happening. We can, as long as we stay, stretch out the first phases of that war, but I think the most likely outcome of staying the course will be to increase the potential suffering, instead of decreasing it. So, I think our differences involve our understanding of the most likely effects of staying until things improve substantially or we are told to leave vs. the most likely outcome of having a withdrawal timetable. I think that would be a worthy topic for discussion. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
