> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:54 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them" > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:42 AM > Subject: RE: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them" > > > > It would, however, be > > reasonable to argue that, while there is wanton murder by some, the > > levels > > are lower than what they were before. > > IIRC the death rate in Iraq is double pre-war levels, mostly due to > the insurgency. > > Or were you pointing to something else and I missed your meaning?
I probably wasn't clear. I was putting forth categories of arguementation, not talking about the actual facts in Iraq. For example, someone who expected a competently run post-invasion period could argue that we should expect life to be better after Hussein than under him. If it were run competently, and death rates were no higher than they were in the last half of 2003, then that would be, IMHO a persuasive argument. Now, it is clear that the US damaged its own interests through the Iraq invasion and it's aftermath, and its probable that Iraq will be worse off after Hussein than under Hussein. So, I was not arguing for the proposition that things are better off than under Hussein. Rather, I was arguing that better or worse than Hussein was a valid measuring stick. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
