I have plenty of retorts about what else we could have done. What you want is to sucker whoever you can into an argument I have taken to calling elsewhere the "Harry Turtledove" Defense- play pretend with history, make believe different things happened, and argue ad nauseum about that. You can't win the case on reality, so you want to argue fantasy.
I instead suggest that we continue the medical analogy and say that what we should of done is this:
FIRST, DO NO HARM
I'm used to ignoring the foam, and I can do it again. But I am honestly interested in what you think "do no harm" actually would have meant in this context.
Isn't assuming that if we'd left Iraq alone everything would somehow have been better in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere--also a "Harry Turtledove" play?
Current Events » in reply to You are, without a doubt, the dumbest smart persopn I have ever met.
re: without a doubt
The whole thread (30 posts)
- The Road Home
- New York Times calls for surrender. Why is this news?
- A prediction, based on history.
- a draft
- re: A prediction, based on history.
- One last point on history
- There was "genocide" and "regional war" in Iraq before 2003
- Picking nits.
- When
- Busting
- PS
- re: Busting
- Busting
- When
- PS: see below Regarding 'Foam'
- Picking nits.
- There was "genocide" and "regional war" in Iraq before 2003
- You are exactly right
- "America is not going to stand for that."
- A prediction, based on history.
- New York Times calls for surrender. Why is this news?
