[Peace-discuss] rumors (response to Mark Bee)

[Randall Cotton]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at uiuc.edu>
Cc: <peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] rumors (response to Mark Bee)


> Randall Cotton wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at uiuc.edu>
> >Cc: <Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 1:33 PM
> >Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] rumors
> >
> >>C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> >>
> >>>There may have been a decision that the current situation can't go on,
and
> >>>the only thing to do is escalate, because (as our liberal Democratic
> >>>candidate for Congress said the other night), " We can't just pull out."
> >>>
> >>>Why not?  --CGE
> >>>
> >>    I dunno, maybe fifty thousand more civilian deaths in the next 6
> >>months?
> >>
> >
> >Dude, you've been watching *way* too much Fox News or something.
> >
> >No one knows what would happen in Iraq if the U.S. began gradually pulling
out
> >troops and ceding power to UN-led peacekeeping efforts and leaders
recognized
> >by Iraqis (as opposed to U.S.-friendly puppets).
> >
>
>    Well now, I might know, or I might not, and either way, it's not the
> same list.  I don't find any of that stuff in the question I was
> responding to.  See for yourself; it's, like, 10 lines ago.
>
>    Reading the rest of this response below, it rather seems that since I
> didn't state my own druthers, a status-quo position has been created for
> me in order to have something to attack.

No, that's honestly just how your position came across.

Carl's position apparently came across a certain way to you as well (though he
provided far less text to go on).

> What I advocate, as if anyone
> wants to hear my personal preferences, is that we turn almost all power
> over to the UN immediately, with *great* fanfare, help plan the
> transition in good faith, and specifically *not* turn tail and run until
> they/we're planted solidly enough to police the place until free
> elections can be run and the new Iraqi administration can cement the
> loyalty of their army.  In other words, probably be out next summer at
> the very earliest.  More likely next winter.  Sucks, eh?  One saving
> grace is that we should be able to reduce our presence at almost, though
> not quite, the same rate at which the UN takes position.
>
>    Of course, whether we'll have to wait for an asteroid strike on DC
> before any of this happens is a side issue.  =)

Actually, I think that touches on the *main* issue. This administration has
proven to be so myopically dogmatic, arrogantly insular, ruthlessly
self-serving and morally bankrupt that I believe as long as they have a hand
in Iraq, it's categorically impossible for them to do anything but make this
already disastrous situation worse. And so I say that even a complete, swift
pullout would be better than the status quo. That's not to say that a "good
faith" handoff to the UN wouldn't be even better (though, in reality, the
chances of either coming to pass may be about the same).

>    "Just pull out - why not?" was the question I was answering.  Should
> I disregard the rest of this response?  I do hate to let that utterly
> illogical WMD comparison slide.  You know, the one followed by the
> chicken-little-logic comment.  -cmb

Well, I'm content to let others judge the logic of that comparison.

> p.s.  Still interested in what folks think will happen if we "just pull
> out".  Even more interested, of course, if anyone knows for sure that
> any particular item in my list of possibilities can't happen.  Or
> rather, knows for sure enough to roll the dice with that many innocent
> lives, none of which are ours.

Some argue that overall, staying in Iraq will help them more than it hurts
them. Many, perhaps most, would disagree and say the opposite. It's all
hypothetical speculation. Nobody knows with absolute certainty. However, the
undisputable facts on the ground are that our presence is directly causing
hardship, injury and death to completely innocent Iraqis. I maintain that
whenever there is *any* doubt whatsoever (and I would hope that any rational
person would see that doubt exists), the morally correct choice is always to
STOP directly causing hardship, injury and death and in practice this
translates to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, one way or another.

R