humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article ,
newsgroups@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net says...
>
> If we had stayed out of Iraq, AQ would never have been exposed for their
> slash and burn tactics, butchering families to clear villages of
> sympathizers and certainly not blamed for initiating a Muslim on Muslim
> civil war.

Never is a long time, Bill. I don't think it was worth three trillion
dollars to expose it now.

> There would be no growing democratic alternative in the heart of
> the Middle East to capture the imagination of Muslims, just fundamentalist
> like AQ and strongmen like Saddam (the "witchdoctor" and the "bruit").

Taheri himself leaves Iraq for last in his analysis, saying the "picture
in Iraq is more complicated" and that "[o]nly the next general election
in 2009 could reveal the true strength of the political parties". Iraq
may turn out to be no more democratic than Iran, and is likely to be
closely aligned with Iran in any case.

> A
> sanctionless Saddam and Iran would be racing to develop WMD,

Pure speculation. He had none when we got there.

> perhaps with
> more Arab nations threatened and joining ,

"perhaps"? Admitted speculation.

> leaving us with an unproven
> military and wondering who'll be the first to leak WMD to some AQ like
> group.

Who will be the first, by the way? ;-)
...
> But support has simultaneously dropped for AQ, the Taliban
> and fundamentalist parties according to a Pakistani polls and election
> results.

Here is an analysis that cites Taheri's text in support of the claim
that fundamentalists are losing ground because of their stand on
contraception.

http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/muslim.html

*That* sounds like something closer to home, but we could spin out any
number of explanations. I note that Taheri himself did not use his
figures to make the argument that you have.

--
Gordon