shovland at mindspring.com
Mon Oct 4 20:41:23 UTC 2004
I forget the exact time and place, but there
was an time during the British rule in
India when they decided to withdraw from
some area. The Indians killed them all
as they tried to escape.
We need to avoid getting into that kind of
situation in Iraq. And we need to remember
the chaotic last days of our presence in Nam.
Right now we have thousands of troops tied
up in Samarra, who will be there until the
Iraqi's can replace them. Until then, our
troops are embedded in a sea of hostiles.
The same would hold true if we "retake" other
What price will the world pay to keep this
unnatural state together? If in the end we
can't prevent a civil war, or least a partition,
why not let it happen sooner rather than later?
From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 11:48 AM
To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org
Subject: [Paleopsych] Iraq
>>I think that what Kerry cannot say, even though
it's true, is that we have lost, just as we did in
--It won't really help to say "we lost, sorry" and
leave Iraq to deal with its own problems. In a vacuum,
a fundamentalist, anti-American regime is almost sure
to rule, with civil war and terrorism making life hell
for Iraqis. There isn't much choice but to bring the
world to agreement on a plan and implement it, with
the US pulling out troops as an alternate force is
brought in to stabilize the cities. The US should
focus on precision strikes against terrorists, since
its credibility is near zero when it comes to policing
Whatever the best possible outcome, the US can't just
pull out and let Iraqis deal with it, because they
don't have the ability to prevent civil war on their
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
paleopsych mailing list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org
More information about the paleopsych