--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Maybe you think removing Saddam isn't > > worth the cost. But you can't say that opposing > the > > invasion wasn't functionally a stand in favor of > > Saddam remaining in power, _because it was_. > > I think that overstates the case a bit. I'll agree > that anyone who was > opposed to the invasion, including me, would have to > accept that his > remaining in power was a highly probable > outcome...so it should be accepted > as the price of not invading. But, by the same > token, people for invasion > needed to accept the very good chance of other > significant negative > outcomes, including the tens of thosands who have > died during the > occupation. I know you agree with that.
I absolutely do. If I had said "A stand against the invasion was a stand against the people of Iraq" - that would have been completely untrue. It is possible - I think it unlikely, but possible - that five years from now the people of Iraq will be worse off than they would have been under Saddam. Saying they are so _now_ is like saying the people of France were worse off in August of 1944. They were, but that does not make D-Day a bad idea. But it is possible that things will not have improved five years from now. But without the invasion Saddam would still have been in power, and that's a big difference, and all I was referring to. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
