[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you assume that you fight a war to stop something from happening, and if you assume that not winning means you failed to stop it, then you can say that we shouldn't have fought the war if what we didn't stop, turned out not to be that bad.



[/ QUOTE ]
but you don't know what you stopped. The only way to assess is is to consider how things would have been if you hadn't had the war.

[/ QUOTE ] But you do know what you DID NOT stop! And what you did not stop is what actually transpired. DS is saying that if what transpired is what you were trying to prevent, and what transpired "turned out not to be that bad", then you should not have fought that war.

Vietnam is actually a perfect example of this. DUCY?