Frenchie Admits, 'We Look Really Stupid'

[Drooper]

iain

Well, make it two decades rather than two years, and i will agree to an extent; but remember, this would only destroy one aspect of anti-war argument -- the argument I had made, that you cannot impose democracy by force.

There are other important aspects to the anti-war argument, though. The biggest one, IMO, is the rule of law.; it's best driven home by comparison.

Suppose there is a murder trial, and you are examining the evidence. You are pretty sure that the defendant is indeed guilty, but yuo have no solid case. You do think you can get conclusive evidence by illegal means -- say, breaking into the house of the friend of a defendant, and examining the computer files.

You break in, and examine the files. Now suppose you were right, and you found your proof. You take it to court, and the judge tosses it out. You are angry -- the defendant isd getting off on a technicality! you can prove he is guilty! why is he being let go?

he is being let go to protect the Constitution, which does not bend to matters of convenience or expediency. if we ignore the Constitution whenever it's convenient, then we have no constitution.

Oh, if only you had you obtained a search warrant! Oh, if only US didn't go in unilaterally!

So yes, my answer is that the war shouldn't be waged in its current form regardless of whether Iraq has chemical and biological weapons; because this type of action destroys the very same rights that all the other states enjoy as well, and would hate to lose. Wwe are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

I don't subscribe to the "democracy by force" argument. I don't want to go over old ground, but your argument is contrived, in the sense that you draw some ludicrously stringent croteria around what countries do or do not qualify as examples.

Anyway, I don't see this as the imposition of democracy by force, but rather the abolition of tyranny by force.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

You just need to think about it a bit longer. Eventually the lighbulb will come on.

You probably also fail to see the irony in your sig. line(s)

I will do you a favor and spell out the discussion:

Originally posted by iain
If in two years time Iraq is better off than it is now and the region is stable then I think the anti-war folk will have been proved largely wrong.

Originally posted by Drooper
I reckon that is a fair assessment.

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot
How many causualites could their be before you changed your assesment?

Originally posted by Drooper
Just yours.

So if I become a causualty then you will change your assesment about the war in Iraq. Only one causualty will cause an assesment change for you. Do you now understand?

I do hope so, but to avoid any arguments with any people who lack logic or courtesy I will simply put you on my ignore list.

 

[Drooper]

I do hope so, but to avoid any arguments with any people who lack logic or courtesy I will simply put you on my ignore list.

Please do rust bucket