From: "Mark" 


"John Beckett"  wrote
in message news:7e6iq1l9lrs7aaciem7o8v4dacbj3l63h4{at}4ax.com...
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news::
>>  I've never been a pessimist, you were born one.
>
> I hope this is your brave face - never admit a weakness in public; always
> emphasise your side's winning points...
>
> I hope that in private you contemplate the points raised by Phil. It's
> probably a bit of artistic licence to attribute what's happened in Iraq to
> OBL's scheming, but that's rather irrelevant when considering the
> prospect of an Iraq that's even more Iranian than Iran.

I agree that that would be an undesirable, potentially disastrous
eventuality. I believe it highly unlikely, while Phil treats it as a
foregone conclusion. That's the difference between pessimism and optimism
to me.

I don't recall all of Phil's positions, but there is a pattern by
detractors of the war in Iraq in general that always goes to worst case
scenario and that have been consistently incorrect, for instance:

1) A few days into the war there was a sandstorm and cries of quagmire
wafted through the air, "they're going to be wiped out in the desert,
woe is us." Then the troops finished up their Big Macs and fries and
proceeded on into Baghdad.

2) There's no way you can turn over sovereignty. We did. Then it wasn't a
"true" sovereignty.

3) You can't hold elections in January, it's too volatile. They did. Then
it was the election doesn't count because the Sunnis didn't participate in
great enough numbers.

4) They'll never write a constitution on time. They did. Then it was the
constitution is flawed and they'll never ratify it. They did. Then again we
hear that the Sunnis didn't participate fully enough, so the constitution
isn't really a constitution.

5) After that ratification is when the detractors started getting nervous
that things were working especially with the election of a permanent
government on the horizon, so they started up their "we're
losing" rhetoric and calling for withdrawal. The election comes and
the Sunnis participate in overwhelming numbers, so suddenly the rhetoric
changes from a lack of participation being a disaster, to just the
opposite. Now it's going to be civil war because 20% of the population
isn't going to be in a leadership position.

In summary, time after time, prior to any given milestone it's considered
impossible to reach and a disaster if it isn't, once passed it's written
off as not all that important after all or not legitimate and a new future
milestone is selected to deride.

I just don't see things that way, that's all. That doesn't mean everything
is going perfectly or that things won't possibly go wrong in the future,
but so far it's gone better and faster than I ever thought it would and
I've seen no reason to lose my optimism.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5