On 2013-05-16, at 2:51 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> The present situation in Iraq is as good for world capital as can be realistically expected.
Hmm. That's quite a climbdown from
> But Bush achieved what every president from
> Eisenhower to Clinton had failed to achieve: the permanent presence of u.s.
> troops in the area.
Besides, the statement is meaningless. Anyone can breezily proclaim, without explanation, that "the present situation in Country X is as good for world capital as can be realistically expected". How is the present situation in Iraq as good for world capital as can be "realistically expected" in comparison with the situation in, say, Greece, Somalia, Poland, Uruguay, Brazil, or Lichtenstein?