On 2010-11-17, at 10:20 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marv: "By surrendering in advance without taking the fight to the
> country..."
>
> [WS:] You seem to consistently avoid addressing the point that Charles, SA
> and I are trying to make - namely, that "taking the fight" was a suicidal
> tactic - virtually certain to lose and create even more damage, and the
> decision to move slowly without provoking the other side going ballistic
> seemed a wise one, as it offered a greater promise of a successful outcome.
>
>
> To counter this you (and others) need to demonstrate that there was a
> reasonable chance that "taking the fight" would have produced a desirable
> outcome in 2008-2010 or at least that a reasonable policy maker had a
> reason to believe that such a chance existed. Charles explicitly denied
> that by pointing to the balance of power, and I concur with his argument
> unless I see a proof to the contrary.
>
> Quoting FDR in the 1930s does not offer such a proof because, as the French
> would say, these were autres temps, autres moeurs - or a very different
> power structure, both domestically and even more importantly -
> internationally (the 'specter of Communism' was very real back then.) And
> the fact that some liberals read more into what Obama was actually saying in
> 2008 is not a proof either - it merely indicates unreasonable expectations
> of some people.
>
> Wojtek
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk