[Preechr]

Anyways... The point of the article was not that we should avoid historical lessons when formulating plans for the future. When he says "Looking back is a sure way to stumble," he is clearly referring to those that are constantly second-guessing the details of the war's prosecution, such as troop levels and six-party talks with NKorea. Everybody and his or her brother is apparently more qualified to plan and execute this war than is the current administration.

Sure, the subtitle of the article is ironic. It's meant that way. Hanson is a history buff. Those that read him do so in order to gain a historical perspective on current events. He's a huge fan of the war from a historical basis, but you don't need to know his work to get what he's saying... you just have to form an impression of this article based on more than just the title.

As far as Ziggy's initial botched joke goes:

"Well, I guess that certainly shows the 'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it' adage who's boss around here."

It sounds more to me like he meant that we "around here" annoy him with, if not our talk of history, at least our spotty support for the war. His was a critique of my posting the article, not it's contents. I'm not complaining about that... as Max says, it's his AMERICAN right to totally disagree with whatever he wants to, even if he refuses to discuss his reasons why.

With that being said, I think Kevin responded appropriately to Ziggy's post. I get the joke, because I've seen him use it before. He started using it back when Ziggy proved he feels no need to explain his objections to certain ideas and/or facts that might cause him to re-evaluate his opinions. Since I don't agree with Ziggy on this, I think it's Ok to say he's got his head in the sand, save for the times he pops in to throw a blurry rock at somebody every once and a while.

I think Kevin would prefer an open and honest discussion to random, snide remarks. I think I would, too. I think Ziggy would prefer me, Blanco, Ant, Kevin and anybody else that doesn't agree with his ill-defined world-view to just drop it and think some other way... more like him, probably.

The article claims those of you that are focused on how what we are doing is doomed to failure are missing the proof that though the road has been rocky, it's headed in the right direction... at least if you consider a democratic mideast the right direction.

Being an "Armchair President" isn't as easy as just wildly objecting to everything the real president does. The decisions being made are based in much more than just what some guy thinks might work. None of us have access to the resources available to the actual planners of the war on terror. We have to guess why what's happening makes sense, or we are left to assume that it just doesn't. Personally, I think it's pretty stupid to assume the most powerful country in the history of the world is being run by retards, but that's just me. I tend to think some sort of intelligent decisions are being carefully weighed out by lots of interested parties before being implemented, and I think public opinion is not heavily wieghted in the process. The goal is the goal.

If you guys have a better method of obtaining that goal, or if you don't believe this should be our goal, please feel free to explain your point of view. I think we all can agree we should be working towards a more peaceful and free world, right? How is hating the Bush franchise working towards anything at all? How is second guessing every decision made in the war on terror helping?

The article simply says it is not. That's what "The Wonders of Hindsight... Looking back is a sure way to stumble" means. You can't win a war... or achieve anything for that matter... by claiming nothing good is possible because everything we've done so far has been done wrong, especially when time is proving some of your suppositions were in fact wrong.