[Peace-discuss] Art of the possible?

[C. G. Estabrook]

What you suggest was the position Bush took in the 2000 campaign, when 
he attacked the Clinton administration's "nation-building" in the former 
Yugoslavia.  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> A fine quote but a little brittle with respect to the statement:
>> If our troops are preventing civil war, helping people, controlling 
>> violence, then why withdraw at all?
> The natural response, especially of the "enterprise" community, could be 
> that "It's costing us too much". 
> 
> Just a thought. --mkb
> 
> 
> On Jul 23, 2007, at 5:00 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> "For antiwar activists to support timetables for the eventual scaling 
>> down of the invasion of Iraq is as if, before the Civil War, 
>> abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a 
>> year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an 
>> appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.  Timetables 
>> for withdrawal are not only morally reprehensible in the case of a 
>> brutal occupation (would you give a thug who invaded your house, 
>> smashed everything in sight, and terrorized your children a timetable 
>> for withdrawal?) but logically nonsensical. If our troops are 
>> preventing civil war, helping people, controlling violence, then why 
>> withdraw at all? If they are in fact doing the opposite -- provoking 
>> civil war, hurting people, perpetuating violence -- they should 
>> withdraw as quickly as ships and planes can carry them home." --Howard 
>> Zinn, via Paul Street
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss