Response to Kevin lee: Big failure in elementary logic

Submitted by Philippe Stephenson (Canada), Jun 3, 2003 at 22:48

In response to the fellow who wrote that Daniel Pipes' reasoning is flawed, one should point out that a promise made in the context of free trade negotiations entails one set of repercussions if it is broken, whereas a promise made as a surrender entails different repercussions if broken. In one case, the free trade deal may be revoked, and protectionist measures reinstated; in the other, the cease-fire agreement is revoked, and war is still on.

Breaking that kind of contract does justify a war. Otherwise, cease-fire agreements become meaningless, and governments have to aim for complete forcible regime change in every war. In some situations, regime change may be the only tenable option, but not every war needs to continue until one of the warring parties is utterly annihilated. The world needs the mechanism of cease-fire agreement to put an end to wars sooner rather than later. That's why these promises are so important, and why it is justifiable to hold governments to them by force.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".