On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 02:49:55PM -0500, judd@wadsworth.org wrote: > On 8 Mar, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 09:14:53AM -0500, judd@wadsworth.org wrote: > >> > >> Actually, our invasion of Iraq is much more likely to lead to a > >> broader war in the Mideast than Saddam was. > >> > > I have a real hard time believing that. The First Gulf War also > > proves your statement cannot possibly be true. > > > > Not at all. We (or at least I) were discussing conditions in 2003 > or later, not 1990. They are quite different. > They are not so different as you think. > I'd think that someone in the military would at least be aware > of concerns that the current situation may lead to a broader regional > conflict between Sunni and Shia. It has certainly affected the balance > of power in the region, with Iran being the big winner to date. > The alternative (being inaction) had worse *long term* effects. Yes, in the short term this is painful (as change tends to be). However, in the *long term* it is for the better. BTW, the primary reason that Iran has been the "big winner" so far is because they see that the liberals are easily dissuaded. The constant rhetoric about setting a fixed timeline is doing far more to hurt than it is to help. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature