Justin wrote:
> As Lincoln said in frustration when Meade, after beating Lee at
> Gettysburg, rejoiced at having driven the invaders from "our soil," "When
> will I bring these generals to understand that the whole country is 'our
> soil.'" Not swo with Iraq. Iraqi democracy is for the Iraqis to settle.
Iraqis who want democracy enough to attempt to effectuate that desire get themselves killed, and I see no reason to think that this won't continue to be the case for the next several decades if the Iraqis are left to "settle" the issue for themselves.
> It's that simple.
Well, not really.
> We have no right to invade Britain because we think a
> constitional system is more democratic than a parlaimentary one,
Set aside the rights talk. Invading Britain would be a disaster because a) a lot (i.e. perhaps millions) of people would die and b) it's damn near impossible to locate the likely positive consequences that would ensue from such action.
> and no business generally goping around installing whatw e think of
democracy all
> over the place. Don't you see that there is no stopping on your theory?
jks
Of course not. We should even go a step further and ensure that peoples in states like Iraq honor their contracts with Hobbesian tyrants. I'm stunned to see this sort of relativism with regard to democracy (conjoined with a slippery slope argument) emanating from your keyboard.
-- Luke