On Feb 27, 2010, at 12:33 PM, steve harley wrote:
On 2010-02-27 10:31 , P N Stenquist wrote:
On Feb 27, 2010, at 12:28 PM, steve harley wrote:
On 2010-02-27 06:13 , paul stenquist wrote:
I think that's true, but the alternative may have been worse: a
mega
Iran and a strong Soviet presence in the middle east. There's no
way
to flip the switch and see what might have happened if Afghan and
Iraq hadn't had U.S. support back in the day.
so the alternative may also have been better
Of course. But if no one ever intervened, we'd all be goose stepping
today. You gotta go with your gut sometimes.
now you seem sure the alternative would have been worse
I'm sure that the alternative to intervention proved worse in the
1930s. Don't know what would have happened if things had been handled
differently in recent situations. Just saying that those who decide
these things sometimes have to trust their instincts, and frequently
they have access to more information than the rest of us ever get to
see.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
