In article , Renata wrote:
The logic (or whatever) problem here is that it's not an absolute.
i.e. "invading" is not (necessarily) the wrong answer.

As a simple exercise in the above:
Invading Iraq, for which the justification now seems to have fallen
apart, (please spare us the line about "best intelligence at the
time"), was, mayhaps, not so wise.

No, I'm *not* going to spare you that line. Decisions can be made *only* on
the basis of what is known at the time. But you're saying that the 2003
decision to invade Iraq was wrong, on the basis of information that we didn't
have until 2004.

Using the justifications the administration gives, i.e. WMD, NKorea
certainly seems to fit the bill a lot better.

So we *should* invade NK? I'm not sure what you're driving at here.

See the difference - "invading" vs "invading Iraq"? That little
modifier ("Iraq") makes a world of difference.

Yes, I understand that you think that invading Iraq was a mistake. You still
appear [above] to be suggesting that *not* invading North Korea is a mistake.

The only consistency I can find between these two positions is that Bush is
in the wrong, no matter what he does.

Renata

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:39:29 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
-snip-

But speaking of baffling logic... you seem to be suggesting that the President

did the wrong thing by invading Iraq, and he's doing the wrong thing by *not*
invading North Korea.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?