From: Samantha (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 02:37:46 MDT
On Thursday 15 May 2003 09:21 am, John K Clark wrote:
> "Michael Wiik" <mwiik@messagenet.com> Wrote:
> >please explain exactly what the 'group' (henceforth the group
> > 'that approved of the war with Iraq') was 'right' about
>
> Well, all the verbiage (some of it mine) about WMD turned out to be
> bunk but they were right about the war going well militarily, and
> they were right about Saddam being a monster, and they were right
> about it putting unfriendly governments on notice that after 911
> the USA was serious so it would be wise not only to stop supporting
> terrorism but to actively try to prevent it because guilty or
> innocent you will be blamed for it, and they were right about there
> being one hell of a lot of oil in Iraq, and they still might turn
> out to be right about the war leading to a better world but it's
> too early to know for sure.
>
We knew all along that:
a) there was a lot of oil in Iraq;
b) Saddam was a monster (although that didn't stop us from supporting
him pre- first Iraq war).
The supposed deterrent effects of the US being willing to attack
other countries with or without reason are yet to be seen. It is
equally likely to lead to more terrorism and more states seeking
nuclear arms as a deterrent against similar treatment. I don't see
how this can be claimed to date as those for war being "right".
The better world thing is way too nebulous? On what scale?
Measuring what variables? Over what amount of time?
So, the above doesn't list much that was "right" at all.
- s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 19 2003 - 02:41:08 MDT