On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:30:47 -0400, JDG wrote > You misunderstand. I'm not referring to anything you've said > before. If I were, I could probably cite the disdain you expressed > for "provable likelihood of success" in an earlier post this week,
I didn't intend disdain. A provable likelihood of success is a wonderful thing, but I don't think it can be a requirement. Faith calls for more than limiting ourselves to what we can understand, doesn't it? > Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a modicum > of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better > in Iraq today than it was under Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam Hussein's > regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe > that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am > *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to > be honest about it. I don't think it has to do with honesty in the everyday sense of the word. I'm at a loss to come up with a *measurable* way of showing that things are better in Iraq today than before we invaded. While Saddam was in charge and nobody was trying to contain or remove him, surely there was less hope, in worldly terms. I have no problem joining you in observing that from our point of view, there is greater hope for peace in that country than there was when Saddam was in power. But is that measurable? To me, it is based on our faith in this country's ability to do good, which I don't think is shared by the Iraqi people, especially after they've seen that we were totally unprepared to heal, nuture and restore their country after we invaded. That has diminished my hope, too. I do appreciate the clarification you offered. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
