You do realise you're arguing against a former officer in the most dangerous of professions in the Canadian armed forces whose job it was to learn and apply lessons past and present to the task at hand? It's yours, not his, responsibility to understand the context in which it is delivered and the forum as a whole will decide the intellectual merit of what you have to offer or determine whether your argument is valid.
Specifically the argument of Wests duty to respond has been invoked unsuccessfully through various arguments that started with the Budapest Moratorium. These arguments when met with fait accompli have been sidestepped. It is not the responsibility of users to cite these arguments and the sidestepping through various threads these arguments have encountered. It isn't worth the time. Re-invigorating the debate in ignorance of these past discussions might satisfy your want for western policy to more forcefully engage, however it will not change the view of those who have already devoted time and insight to previous discussions. On face value it might constitute a 'win/loose' situation on a very local page which you so evidently seem to base the content of your debate entry on, but it does not address these real questions posed. As such it offers no new information to change any calculus.
At the end of the day both of you will have to have a think about what it actually means to be arguing against officers and defence professionals of various armed forces.
Specifically the argument of Wests duty to respond has been invoked unsuccessfully through various arguments that started with the Budapest Moratorium. These arguments when met with fait accompli have been sidestepped. It is not the responsibility of users to cite these arguments and the sidestepping through various threads these arguments have encountered. It isn't worth the time. Re-invigorating the debate in ignorance of these past discussions might satisfy your want for western policy to more forcefully engage, however it will not change the view of those who have already devoted time and insight to previous discussions. On face value it might constitute a 'win/loose' situation on a very local page which you so evidently seem to base the content of your debate entry on, but it does not address these real questions posed. As such it offers no new information to change any calculus.
At the end of the day both of you will have to have a think about what it actually means to be arguing against officers and defence professionals of various armed forces.
Comment