On 05/04/06, Kiran Jonnalagadda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Economist's parting editor reflects on why his paper chose to > support the American-led invasion of Iraq. > have been, and we were. But when the choice is between bad options > and worse ones, a choice must still be made. Great enterprises can > fail—but they fail twice over if they take away our moral courage and > prevent us from rising to the next challenge.
I can't say I agree with him, but I have to admire his consistency. However, he does fail to note that decisions based on poor data are almost invariably wrong. With Bush spinning the threat perception how valid was the data that the Economist used to to decide to support the war? Frankly, the best that I can hope for is that the world has learned now that it's easier to break something than to make something. Iraq is a tragedy of democratic hubris. You'd think that post-colonial Africa would have taught us that democracy isn't easy -- nor is it a silver bullet to solve all the world's problems. How depressing. -- b
