Reread what I wrote. I'm just not much for destabilizing systems that seem to have reached some sort of equilibrium. Why? Because things can so often turn out worse than they already are. Now you can certainly argue that they would turn out better, as you do argue. And I can't prove you wrong- just as you can't prove my world view wrong. We have different world views. I am not sure my world view is correct (just as I'm not sure yours is incorrect). But it has a certain appeal to me, since I hate wasting resources in perturbing a system, when the perturbation has a large probability of being negative- for the US. Now you could (and I think do) evaluate things differently. But when I read you, I get no hint that you realize all this is wildly uncertain stuff. If you look at history, most of the time we get unintended consequences- and quite often they are rather nasty.
What I get back from you, is you saying I think the USSR and Saddam were "benevolent". This shows a complete lack of understanding for what I said, or an intentional wish to distort. Either way it's very discouraging- and to call you on your black and white presentation of this, and your distortion of what I've said, is not, imo, a personal attack. But I apologize if I hurt your feelings. That was not my intent. However, I do wish you would either read what I have actually written, and try to respond to that, or just don't post to me. It's too depressing to respond to the straw positions you make up for me, since it is such a time sink. |
