> Iraq turned out so well, didn't it? You think they want to do that
> again?
There's a point I keep trying to make, and I never seem to be able to get it across. Perhaps I express myself badly. I'll try again.
I don't profess to know whether They "want to do it again" or not. I wouldn't be surprised if they did; I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. What baffles me is your (and others') certainty on the subject -- though the sages are, as usual, divided; some certain that our barbarous sons will spread like a deluge on the Libyan sands; others equally certain that this Miltonic scenario will never occur.
Since I don't understand the source of either certainty, I'm not convinced by arguments based on 'em.
One might give some reasons for UN-certainty. Vietnam didn't turn out so well -- at least, not for a while; but They did it again in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then too, it's not entirely clear that They feel Iraq was a failure. If They thought that, then why are We still there? Wouldn't that fact suggest that They think it's a work in progress -- or possibly even a success? Couple of years back, everybody was saying the Surge worked. Was that verdict overturned when I wasn't looking?
But please understand, I'm not arguing that They will go in. To repeat: I just don't know. Seems to me it could go either way.
Based on previous form, however, perhaps We can all agree (except maybe Gilbert Achcar) that if They *do* go in, the usual horrors will assuredly ensue?
-- --
Michael J. Smith mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://www.cars-suck.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com