From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> It was wrong because it didn't have anything to do >> with 9/11 or the war on >> terrorism. >So you say. Yet there is, in fact, a pretty coherent >argument otherwise. You don't like it, but that >doesn't make the people who feel otherwise deluded or >anything else. I'm a pretty well-informed guy, and I >think that you are wrong, in fact. I would be interested to hear this coherent arguement. The one that demonstrates that Saddan and Iraq were intimately involved in 9/11. Or was it the second part you were referring too the War on Terror? Is the "Bastion of Democracy in the Heart of the Middle East" argument? I think thats part of the Straw Man Doug was talking about. I can see how one can make that argument, and the ends I agree with. There is no doubt in my mind that a vibrant, successful, secular Islamic Democracy would be a good thing, and would probably, eventually, result in less terrorism. As you quite rightly said, there is a big gap beween wanting something, and actually achieving it. An unprovoked unilateral invasion of Iraq was, in my opinion, not the way to do it. I read your comments on popularism with interest too. There is a school of thought common in my experience among those of the extremes (left/right/up/down) that holds that doing something unpopular must be inherently worthwhile. These people tend to like to beat their chests and crow about how tough they are. I dont hold to that school, and think decisions should be based on something other than popularism or otherwise. It worries me that the US/Bush is so proud of doing something unpopular. It does not make it right, any less than doing popular things is. Andrew
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
