Safe at home
Unqualified Offerings
by Jim Henley
01/15/08
Schultz may have found a politically palatable way to argue against continuing the Iraq adventure, but only by reinforcing the official line that maintaining a massive, free American military capacity is our only protection against nebulous but innumerable ‘contingencies.’ Now in the above argument, I’m using ‘defend’ in its old, strict sense of ‘defend.’ If you prefer the modern usage of start numerous wars in far-flung corners of the world for hazy reasons, the article’s logic becomes more compelling. But the reasons to end the American presence in Iraq are that the war was wrongly launched to start, is ruinously expensive, has been bloody for Americans and far moreso for Iraqis, and can succeed at no larger purpose than giving the US government a platform from which to launch even more wars like it...
http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/15/7732
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Jim+Henley
by Jim Henley
01/15/08
Schultz may have found a politically palatable way to argue against continuing the Iraq adventure, but only by reinforcing the official line that maintaining a massive, free American military capacity is our only protection against nebulous but innumerable ‘contingencies.’ Now in the above argument, I’m using ‘defend’ in its old, strict sense of ‘defend.’ If you prefer the modern usage of start numerous wars in far-flung corners of the world for hazy reasons, the article’s logic becomes more compelling. But the reasons to end the American presence in Iraq are that the war was wrongly launched to start, is ruinously expensive, has been bloody for Americans and far moreso for Iraqis, and can succeed at no larger purpose than giving the US government a platform from which to launch even more wars like it...
http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/15/7732
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Jim+Henley
rudkla - 16. Jan, 13:45
