[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Matt Gushee]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:03:07PM -0600, Match Grun wrote:
> Just because Baghdad fell so quickly does _NOT_ mean the anti-war
> movement was right. This seems like that old adage about statistics!

Perhaps--and it may depend what you mean by "right." It appears to mean,
does it not, that Iraq was really not much of a military threat after
all? Where was the imminent danger that our leaders made so much of in
pushing for invasion. You do remember, don't you, that it was all
supposed to be about Weapons of Mass Destruction--until it became
embarrassingly obvious that there were few if any such to be found? Then
the reason switched to "liberating the Iraqi people." Which, if you ask
me, could be a legitimate reason for having started the war. But that
was *not* why this whole thing got started. Doesn't that bother you at
all?

> If we never invaded, Baghdad would not have fallen, and probably
> would not fall for many years.

Are you sure that Baghdad had to "fall" for meaningful change to take
place in Iraq?

-- 
Matt Gushee                 When a nation follows the Way,
Englewood, Colorado, USA    Horses bear manure through
mgushee at havenrock.com           its fields;
http://www.havenrock.com/   When a nation ignores the Way,
                            Horses bear soldiers through
                                its streets.
                                
                            --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)