At 03:45 PM Wednesday 5/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On May 11, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe you think removing Saddam isn't
worth the cost. But you can't say that opposing
the
invasion wasn't functionally a stand in favor of
Saddam remaining in power, _because it was_.
I think that overstates the case a bit. I'll agree
that anyone who was
opposed to the invasion, including me, would have to
accept that his
remaining in power was a highly probable
outcome...so it should be accepted
as the price of not invading. But, by the same
token, people for invasion
needed to accept the very good chance of other
significant negative
outcomes, including the tens of thosands who have
died during the
occupation. I know you agree with that.
I absolutely do. If I had said "A stand against the
invasion was a stand against the people of Iraq" -
that would have been completely untrue. It is
possible - I think it unlikely, but possible - that
five years from now the people of Iraq will be worse
off than they would have been under Saddam. Saying
they are so _now_ is like saying the people of France
were worse off in August of 1944.
Uhh, actually, more like October of 1946, don't you think? Some 26 months
*after* Normandy, right?
They were, but that
does not make D-Day a bad idea. But it is possible
that things will not have improved five years from
now. But without the invasion Saddam would still have
been in power, and that's a big difference, and all I
was referring to.
Yeah, unless something really unexpected happened. That's another reason I
wonder why we didn't focus more extensively on Afghanistan. Wouldn't it
have been a good place in which to base our own insurgents? Only these
agitating for change internally, or maybe just some well-placed, ahem,
operatives with excellent long-distance vision and steady fingers?
Good breath control is necessary, too.
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
