[001]
Korval
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
** [[AlternateCharacterInterpretation Strictly speaking, there are three possible scenarios: US does not invade Iraq, US invades Iraq and loses, US invades Iraq and wins. A person who sincerely prefers the first scenario is not a hypocrite for preferring the third over the second once the invasion has actually taken place. Letterman might have pointed this out, if he was as \
to:
** [[AlternateCharacterInterpretation Strictly speaking, there are three possible scenarios: US does not invade Iraq, US invades Iraq and loses, US invades Iraq and wins. A person who sincerely prefers the first scenario is not a hypocrite for preferring the third over the second once the invasion has actually taken place. Letterman might have pointed this out, if he was as \\\"thoughtful\\\" as all that.]]
And FYI, the question presupposes that there is an objective condition defined \\\"winning\\\" which all parties can agree on and which could possibly take place. \\\'\\\'That\\\'\\\' is why it is not an easy question: because such an objective, commonly-agreed upon definition does not exist or has not been established. Until it does exist/is established, the whole \\\"three possibilities\\\" stuff is total nonsense.
And FYI, the question presupposes that there is an objective condition defined \\\"winning\\\" which all parties can agree on and which could possibly take place. \\\'\\\'That\\\'\\\' is why it is not an easy question: because such an objective, commonly-agreed upon definition does not exist or has not been established. Until it does exist/is established, the whole \\\"three possibilities\\\" stuff is total nonsense.
