Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rippley
Ok, I saw this discussion on another board. Well, a mailing list I'm on. And I thought I'd throw it to the intellectual sharks of the TFP:
So, against all predictions, the Iraqi elections had
very high turn-out with little violence and no
accusations of foul play. US troops kept themselves
out of sight, Arab news channels gave positive and
optimistic coverage and in general everyone seems
pleasently surprised at how well the whole thing
went.
Bush claimed that democracy in Iraq would make the
invasion worthwhile. Does this prove him right? Is
there merit to his "domino theory" of democracy in
the Middle East? Was this worth 15,000 lives? (not a
rhetorical question).
Was the anti-war movement wrong?
|
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
If, as predicted by Bush, the US goes into Iraq, makes short work of the defenders, finds WMD, is greeted with flowers falling from the sky and an outpouring of Iraqi love, builds a successful democracy in Iraq that acts as a beacon, causing other middle eastern states to reform and become bastions of freedom, and along the way prevents terrorism.... then I'd even forgive Bush for Ashcroft.
As yet:
Short work of defenders: CHECK
Flowers: Nope
WMD: Nope
Successful Democracy: Nope
Wave of Reform: Nope
Terrorism become a small annoyance: Nope
He's batting 167. I'll keep you posted.
(the above list is from memory: it may have contained more or less points).
As for stevo, well, at some level, I don't trust articles relayed to me embedded in a white-supremacy editorial. The amount of slant I'd assume would be huge.