On Sep 5, 4:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote :



Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
idea?

Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo
Oliver" and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political
specifics."

:-)

Very true,

I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at
this juncture?

I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post.

All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought
our military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal
about a good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but
I had this gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was
clear as mud.

I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this
administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn
up WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast,
finished, and kaput politically."

But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's
a lesson in there somewhere.

I suppose it's "make your lie big enough and popular enough and it won't
matter"

I too thought they'd find weapons of mass destruction, but even if they
found chemical weapons, it'd be in a fine old traditon. Winston
Churchill authorised thier use in Iraq in the thirties.

His rationale? (i'm too lazy to look it up so I'll paraphrase) It#s not
like we're gassing people who matter.....

actually, IIRC what he actually said is evn more shocking.


IIRC he advocated using mustard gas against 'savages' in Africa.
His rationale was that it was less lethal, but caused more suffering
than other weapons so that the population could be subjugated
with fewer casualties. Dunno about WMD elsewhere in the world.

I'm not inclined to defend his argument.

--

FF