----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 3:15 PM Subject: RE: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger >> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:54 PM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: Re: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them" >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> >> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:42 AM >> Subject: RE: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them" >> >> >> > It would, however, be >> > reasonable to argue that, while there is wanton murder by some, >> > the >> > levels >> > are lower than what they were before. >> >> IIRC the death rate in Iraq is double pre-war levels, mostly due to >> the insurgency. >> >> Or were you pointing to something else and I missed your meaning? > > I probably wasn't clear. I was putting forth categories of > arguementation, > not talking about the actual facts in Iraq. For example, someone > who > expected a competently run post-invasion period could argue that we > should > expect life to be better after Hussein than under him. If it were > run > competently, and death rates were no higher than they were in the > last half > of 2003, then that would be, IMHO a persuasive argument. Now, it is > clear > that the US damaged its own interests through the Iraq invasion and > it's > aftermath, and its probable that Iraq will be worse off after > Hussein than > under Hussein. So, I was not arguing for the proposition that > things are > better off than under Hussein. Rather, I was arguing that better or > worse > than Hussein was a valid measuring stick. > That explains things then<G> Heck I've made such arguments. xponent Anti-Gravitas Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
