In his August 5 WSJ op ed, Bret Stephens argues that, "The war in Iraq is over. We've won." (He has in mind the low troop fatalities.)
We can argue whether or not that is accurate, and whether or not he might look foolish in 12 months. (Remember the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco.) But the real contribution is his list of reasons why the invasion was a success:
Here's a partial list: Saddam is dead. Had he remained in power, we would likely still believe he had WMD.
Is anyone else amused/horrified by that second reason for invading another country? Rather than, "Oh my goodness, we killed a bunch of people on the basis of bad intelligence!" Stephens has turned it into, "Phew! We killed a bunch of people, but at least we corrected our bogus intelligence."
If you wish to better understand Zeno's worry about the continuum, you could do worse than to consider loops in software. Case 1: You...
Declares LewRockwell.com : "All of this means that while the government has been artificially propping up the economy and 'stimu...
Is shaping up nicely .
The language won't die, but that doesn't mean the programmers won't ! Funny quote: '"Just because a language is 50...