Dan Minette wrote: > > 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.
Because, of course, JDG and I are the epitome of unreasonableness... *g* > 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. Agreed. > 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 this is where you too fall prey to Bush's Manichean world view. The object was [for argument's sake] the removal of a dictator. Bush's plan was invasion and re-building. And *no other alternatives* were ever explored. You either had to buy Bush's vision or be declared a supporter of Saddam's regime of torture. Frankly, I find that nonsensical and do not buy the argument. Let's say I read a newspaper report about a man taking his one month old baby for a walk by the river. He sees a small kid drowning. He jumps in with the baby, can't save the boy, and all three die. I read the story and remark, 'Oh, that's stupid.' Now that does not automatically make me a supporter of drowning, or of the notion that small kids should drown. All it means is that I think the dad should have lay the baby down somewhere before jumping in to effect a rescue, that it is stupid to jump in with at least one arm already occupied. Similarly, I find the notion of bombing a people into democracy and gratitude stupid. And I really honestly do not believe that Bush's failure of imagination and my recognition of the same makes me responsible for Saddam's crimes, or the hypothetical continuation thereof. > 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. Argue all you want, I'm not buying it. :) Now if there had been a serious attempt to find a different, less destructive way to get rid of Saddam before the invasion and the tarring of every opposer as a supporter of Saddam you might have had a point. But there wasn't, and therefore you don't. > 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. Yes, and what we are seeing here is an attempt to avoid responsibility for the choice made by saying 'your choice was bad too!' The fact is that no other choice was explored or offered. 'Your agreement or accusations of being a supporter of a genocidal murderer' is not a valid choice. Not when the proposed plan is ridiculous. > In doing so, "the other alternatives were all worse" would be > a valid argument. Yes, but to say that other alternatives would have had to be explored. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
