Reply #17: Who says we're "leaving them there"? [View All]

[no name no slogan]

You're incorrect on DK's position on the occupation of Iraq. You may want to read his actual position on his web site, and clear up the misperceptions.

In brief, it goes like this:

The FIRST step is to get a true international coalition IN TO IRAQ-- i.e., "UN IN". This means handing over control to an third-party organization who has no ulterior motives in the region.

The NEXT step is to get the US OUT, after we have turned over the administration, management and rebuilding to the UN. That DOES NOT mean that we cut and run-- far from it. We would still support the rebuilding of Iraq, but we would NOT be the ones to directly profit from it.

A better analogy would be closer to this, for our current situation:

"You're leading a caravan on the highway and come to a bridge. You decide to blow up the bridge in front of everyone, leaving no doubt as to who did it. You offer to "rebuild" the bridge, your way, without any input from anybody else. Your "new" bridge does not cross over the river, but only goes halfway across and drops off into the river. Not only that, you set up a toll booth to collect tolls from everyone in the caravan, where there wasn't a toll booth before."

Would the people in the caravan "trust" you to have their best interests in mind? Not likely.

Now, try this on, which is closer to DK's plan:

"You're leading a caravan on the highway and come to a bridge. You blow the bridge up in front of everyone. Because you know you've lost face to the caravan, you choose to go to an outside party to take over leadership of the caravan and to rebuild the bridge. The bridge is rebuilt by the third party, with resources you provide, and the caravan is safely led across the bridge by the new caravan leaders."