PDA

View Full Version : Kerry would abandon terror war



mtnbiker
03 Mar 04,, 04:00
Begin dialogue with regimes, apologize for mistakes by Bush


The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the U.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major U.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change U.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Presidential contenders have criticized sitting presidents in times of war before, but what's unique today is that "it has become the rule, not the exception," says Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation. "With a few notable exceptions, you have almost the entire Democratic Party hierarchy that opposes what Bush is doing in the most vitriolic and emotional terms."

Heritage presidential historian Lee Edwards called it "not a foreign-policy analysis but a polemical speech, filled with inflammatory rhetoric that is disturbing and beyond the pale. What this suggests is that Mr. Kerry wants to take us back to President [Bill] Clinton and his U.N.-led multilateral policies."

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."

Perhaps frustrated that his radical departure from the war on terror was not getting much attention in the trenches of Democratic Party politics, Kerry ordered his campaign to mobilize grass-roots supporters to spread the word.

In one e-mail message, obtained by Insight and confirmed as authentic by the Kerry camp, the senator's advisers enlisted overseas Democrats to launch a letter-writing and op-ed campaign denouncing the Bush foreign-policy record.

"'It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world," the message states. "America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others."

The e-mail succeeded beyond the wildest dream of Kerry's handlers -- at least, so they tell Insight. It was immediately picked up by the Mehr news agency in Tehran, and appeared the next day on the front page of a leading hard-line daily there.

"I have no idea how they got hold of that letter, which was prepared for Democrats Abroad," Kerry's top foreign-policy aide, Rand Beers, tells Insight. "I scratched my head when I saw that. The only way they could have gotten it was if someone in Iran was with Democrats Abroad."

The hard-line, anti-American Tehran Times published the entire text of the seven-paragraph e-mail under a triumphant headline announcing that Kerry pledged to "repair damage if he wins election." By claiming that the Kerry campaign had sent the message directly to an Iranian news agency in Tehran, the paper indicated that the e-mail was a demonstration of Kerry's support for a murderous regime that even today tops the State Department's list of supporters of international terrorism.

According to dissident Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who fled Iran for Germany after being held for four years in a regime prison, Iran's hard-line clerics "fear President Bush." In an interview with Insight, Haeri says that President Bush's messages of support to pro-democracy forces inside Iran and his insistence that the Iranian regime abandon its nuclear-weapons program "have given these people the shivers. They think that if Bush is re-elected, they'll be gone. That's why they want to see Kerry elected."

The latest Bush message, released on Feb. 24, commented on the widely boycotted Iranian parliamentary elections that took place the week before.

"I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran," President Bush said. "The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech, including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders. The United States supports the Iranian people's aspiration to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights and determine their own destiny."

The Kerry campaign released no statement on the widely discredited Iranian elections, reinforcing allegations from pro-democracy Iranian exiles in America that the junior senator from Massachusetts is working hand-in-glove with pro-regime advocates in the United States.

Kerry foreign-policy aide Beers tried to nuance the impression that Kerry was willing to seek new ties with the Tehran regime and forgive the Islamic republic for 25 years of terror that began by taking U.S. diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1979 and continues to this day with Iran's overt support and harboring of top al-Qaida operatives. Just the day before the e-mail message was sent to the Mehr news agency, Beers told a foreign-policy forum in Washington that Kerry "is not saying that he is looking for better relations with Iran. He is looking for a dialogue with Iran. There are some issues on which we really need to sit down with the Iranians."

The word "dialogue" immediately gives comfort to hard-liners, says Ayatollah Haeri. While Beer's comments went unnoticed by the U.S. press, they were prominently featured by the official Islamic Republic News Agency in a Feb. 7 dispatch from Washington.

In an interview with Insight, Beers went even further. "We are prepared to talk to the Iranian government" of hard-line, anti-American clerics, he insisted. "While we realize we have major differences, there are areas that could form the basis for cooperation, such as working together to stop drug production in Afghanistan."

Beers has a special history in Washington. A longtime National Security Council aide who served President Clinton and was carried over by the Bush White House, he resigned as the war in Iraq began in March 2003. Just weeks later, he volunteered for the Kerry campaign. The Washington Post heralded him in a profile as "a lifelong bureaucrat" who was an "unlikely insurgent." Yet the Post acknowledged that he was a "registered Democrat" who by resigning at such a critical moment was "not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss [Bush] out of office."

Talking to Insight, Beers compares Kerry's proposal to begin talks with Iran to the senator's earlier advocacy of renewing relations with Vietnam after the Vietnam War: "No expectations, eyes wide open."

With Iran, which is known to be harboring top al-Qaida operatives, Beers says "there is no way to have a deal without having the hard-liners as part of the dialogue. We are prepared to talk to the hard-line element" as part of an overall political dialogue with the Iranian regime.

The Kerry policy of seeking an accommodation with the regime is not new, says Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has been tracking Iran policy for two decades.

"Kerry's approach is that of many in Europe who think you must entice rogue regimes. Enticement only works if it is followed up with the notion that there would be a penalty if they didn't behave. I see nothing of that in Sen. Kerry's statements."

For Aryo Pirouznia, who chairs the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, Kerry's offer to negotiate with hard-liners in the regime smacks of lunacy.

"America is incredibly popular with the Iranian masses, so this is a grave mistake for a short-term benefit," Pirouznia says. "To the regime, this sends a message that America is willing to make a deal despite the blood of Americans who were murdered in Dhahran [Saudi Arabia] and are being killed today in Iraq by so-called foreign elements. And to Iranians, it shows that the old establishment may be back in power, a return to the Carter era."

Pirouznia's Texas-based support group, which worked closely with protesting students during the July 1999 uprising in Tehran, sent an open letter to Kerry on Feb. 19 noting that "millions of dollars" had been raised for the Democratic Party by Iranian-American political-action committees and fund-raisers with ties to the Tehran regime.

"By sending such a message directly to the organs and the megaphones of the dictatorial Islamic regime, you have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy," Pirouznia says. "You have encouraged and emboldened a tyrannical regime to use this as propaganda and declare 'open season' on the freedom fighters in Iran."

Confed999
03 Mar 04,, 04:57
Originally posted by mtnbiker
the e-mail was a demonstration of Kerry's support for a murderous regime
Don't get me wrong here, I would rather have a goat for Prez than Kerry, but I feel about the same way for this administration's trade with Cuba.

Lunatock
03 Mar 04,, 17:35
Wouldn't his contacting Iran's Regime for any possible support for his campaign be a violation of the Federal Law enacted after Sept. 11th?

Sanction his campaign and freeze a few assets. :evil:

Trooth
03 Mar 04,, 21:06
I am surprised at the stridentness of the statements however i too beleive that it will be dialogue not guns that end the war on terror.

However i do not believe stating that the military option will end is the right way forward. It will give succor to those who would fear the military option.

I do have one question. Is there a position in the US Senate that gains you the title of junior senator? Or is the author of the article just showing his true colours?

mtnbiker
05 Mar 04,, 20:33
Junior Senator is a term given to the second senator from a state(each state gets two senators) that has not been in office as long as the other senator. Kerry is the junior senator from Massachusetts because Sen Kennedy has been there longer.

ChrisF202
05 Mar 04,, 22:55
John Kerry's ideas are very disturbing, at times I think he wants a socialist republic

Major_Armstrong
17 Mar 04,, 02:55
Iran is about ready to be liberated. All the Iranian civilians hate the mullahs and clerics running the country. The rulers are corrupt. A lot of people were protesting against the regime and got arrested. Western countries could help out by sending in military forces to help liberate the people from the evil regime that controls the country.


See
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=3273&highlight=iran


http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/ani/lop/movie/pgm-sc14.htm


http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/islamist/islamist.htm

Ray
17 Mar 04,, 05:16
If Kerry should become the President and there is much time left for the egg to hatch, it would be rather unwise of him to totally abandon the War on Terror.

He could of course approach the issue in a different way but to abrogate the the policy totally would be living in a Fool's Paradise.

Major,

Iran is already succumbing to the international pressure. They decided to not allow the International Agency from checking their nuclear plants but they wilted and has now again agreed to allow full inspection.

One just can't go regime changing all at one time. The US is already over stretched with Afghanistan and Iraq. Once these two hot spots stabilises, then other things could be thought of. If Spain indeed pulls out of Iraq, then the cup of woe will brim over.

Blademaster
17 Mar 04,, 05:23
Major Armstrong, if that is you are really a major.

what you suggest is unwise. We should let the Iranians take care of the problem.

Remember Vietnam and the Iran Hostage crisis.

Confed999
18 Mar 04,, 02:10
Originally posted by Ray
If Kerry should become the President and there is much time left for the egg to hatch, it would be rather unwise of him to totally abandon the War on Terror.
Aparently Kerry doesn't think it's a war, he sees it as a police action. The CIA and FBI have allready shown they aren't up to the task alone, I believe we need the military too.

Originally posted by Ray
One just can't go regime changing all at one time. The US is already over stretched with Afghanistan and Iraq. Once these two hot spots stabilises, then other things could be thought of.
If even one stabilises I would support the training and safe haven for Iranian rebels, and when they're ready all the air and material support the US can provide.

Ray
19 Mar 04,, 09:34
Confed,

Honestly, it was war and now it is police action. Note, there is no recognised organised military enemy.

Do forgive me I seen both types of armed scenarios and action thereof and I reckon I should know a wee bit more.

War has to be addressed differently and police action or counter insurgency/ counter terrorist by the Army in a different way.

War is 'kick the shit out of any oppositon' and police acton is to 'win the hearts and mind'. I didn't say that. It was the said in western training pamphlets that is our 'guide'.

The only successful control of insurgency was by the Birtish General in Malaya. I think his name was Templer.

Everywhere else military action has failed. It has only been able to subdue - nothing more, nothing less.

Confed999
19 Mar 04,, 18:36
Originally posted by Ray
Confed,

Honestly, it was war and now it is police action.
It's a military police action, sure, today, tomorrow it will be more. Kerry want's to go back to the old days with a few thousand CIA and FBI looking to arrest terrorists. I want the terrorists AND the countries that support them threatened with extinction, neither the CIA nor the FBI can do that without involving the military. To me this war will really be over the day Americans start going to college in the mid-east and not the other way around.

Trooth
19 Mar 04,, 21:51
I maintain that i do not believe this "war" can be solved militarily. Certainly lots of people can be killed, and lots more subdued. but hatered etc will persist and will only flare up again once the iron grip is relased.

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 04,, 23:04
Originally posted by Trooth
I maintain that i do not believe this "war" can be solved militarily. Certainly lots of people can be killed, and lots more subdued. but hatered etc will persist and will only flare up again once the iron grip is relased.

The Mongols, Turkic peoples, and even the Romans have proven that military force alone can win this kind of "war" provided you carry it to its logical conclusion - genocide.

I'm not stating that this is an option but one should remember this simple fact - ie Don't force me to kill you all.

Praxus
19 Mar 04,, 23:10
The only way we will win short of genocide is to take out the ideological and funding centers of Militant Islam. These are Iran and Saudia Arabia.

We must force Republicanism on them, we must force free markets on, and we have to give them their rights wether they want them or not. If they want to fight us, I say bring it on.

Trooth
20 Mar 04,, 01:54
I still don't believe it will work.

Whatever ever you force one people, whether you believe it to be the right thing to do, they will resent and the hatred will fester until you release your grip.

They already see themselves as freedom fighters, forcing them to do anything just proves their point in their minds.

Confed999
20 Mar 04,, 02:32
Originally posted by Trooth
I still don't believe it will work.
Then what do you propose should be done?

Ray
20 Mar 04,, 03:07
Insurgencies have never been put down except in Malaya.

Genocide is the only answer. Will the US go that far? If so, then the violence and terrorism will subside.

How does someone stop financing the terrorists? Check out how many countries are Islamic. More than half the globe! They are sitting on world's oil. The oil is required to run the western economy. It runs the world's economy.

Therefore, it means take over half the world. Can one fight or physically police half the world's population?

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 04,, 03:49
Originally posted by Ray
Insurgencies have never been put down except in Malaya.

That's not quite true, Sir. Genghis Khan put down the Afghan insurgency very effectively. The Native-American Wars has been won by the "White Man." The British won the Boer War which essentially was an insurgency. I strongly hestitate to raise the Indian example but the British did effectively win that one against the various murder cults.

All I can say about each and every one of them was that they were not pretty and even though they were not genocide, it sure felt like it. Those were as brutal as wars as any in recorded history.

Ray
20 Mar 04,, 05:29
Colonel,

I was alluding to contemporary times.

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 04,, 05:48
Originally posted by Ray
Colonel,

I was alluding to contemporary times.

Actually, Sir, there are several contempoary examples, Tibet. The ethnic tribes of Vietnam and Cambodia who sided with the Americans after the Fall of Hanoi. Argentina and Chile.

Trooth
20 Mar 04,, 11:10
Originally posted by Confed999
Then what do you propose should be done?

There are two issues as i see it. A group or groups that are preaching hate and using that to fuel those that commit the terror and those whose circumstances lend themselves to believing the hate and givng them motive to pursue the terror.

The first set need to be weeded out, the second set need to be convinced that there isn't any justification in the hate. That their circumstances are not the creation of the west, that those preaching are preaching hate, not sense, that Allah in fact doesn't want to wipe out everyone on the planet and that mindless murder is not going to alleviate their problems.

As i see it, to do anything else, simply proves the hate mongers correct.

Thus i do not see that threatening and invading a succession of nations will take away the any o the motives from those who believe the hate. And i see it providing a nice colourful example to be used by the hate preachers.

From the west's point of view, there isn't any great concern over why so many people resonate with the calls of teh terrorists. We seem to be keen on curing the symptoms, not the problems.

Confed999
20 Mar 04,, 15:57
Originally posted by Trooth
There are two issues as i see it. A group or groups that are preaching hate and using that to fuel those that commit the terror and those whose circumstances lend themselves to believing the hate and givng them motive to pursue the terror.

The first set need to be weeded out, the second set need to be convinced that there isn't any justification in the hate. That their circumstances are not the creation of the west, that those preaching are preaching hate, not sense, that Allah in fact doesn't want to wipe out everyone on the planet and that mindless murder is not going to alleviate their problems.

As i see it, to do anything else, simply proves the hate mongers correct.

Thus i do not see that threatening and invading a succession of nations will take away the any o the motives from those who believe the hate. And i see it providing a nice colourful example to be used by the hate preachers.

From the west's point of view, there isn't any great concern over why so many people resonate with the calls of teh terrorists. We seem to be keen on curing the symptoms, not the problems.
How do you do all of this without removing the opresstive governments and leaders that won't allow the message to be heard? Actually this is allready what's being done. If it fails then there's only one option left, and it involves a dramatic population decrease. Your "what to do" is fine, but you need a "how to do it". I submit the only way is to remove the vocal opposition and set the people free so our message can be heard. Exactly what's being done.

Trooth
20 Mar 04,, 16:31
It will take time. Lots and lots of time. The west's current attitude is that there is a quick fix, war. But this is patent nonsense for several reasons. The more war that is waged, the more people that are killed simply plays into the hands of those that insist that all the west is intent on is to wipe out muslims and islam, to steal their resources and to oppress their people. It will be difficult to argue this isn't the case as more regimes are toppled.

Sure you may have access to the people, but by now, they may here but they won't want to listen. They will see their homes and lives ruined, the loved ones dead. It won't matter what the reas is, or how good the poster campaign is.

It is interesting the West is keen for direct military intervnetion now, but during the cold war it wasn't and fought by proxy nations. Could it be because the evil empire of the cold war was able to fight back hard, whereas the current enemy cannot ?

But toppling regimes won't topple terrorists. AQ has less money than the western governments, the Palestinians terrorist have less money than the Israeli government. But they still operate. And, even if we might find it upsetting to admit it, operate successfully despite all the money and resources that have been applied to stop them. Remember their sucees are "show" but deadly, they only have to be lucky once, we have to lucky all the time etc. Each small pinprick success causes another group to realsie that they can hit the infidel hard. Each regime threatened and even topppled, proves that they must hit the infidel hard.

If you pursue the war path, then the only option is genocide. Aside from being an unspeakable crime, it is also a deeply arrogant thought. At the moment it is polemic when current leaders (of either side) are compared to the despots of the past. However there would be no difference between the west and the other leaders who have chosen to impose their will and way of life on others through genocide.


Originally posted by Praxus
The only way we will win short of genocide is to take out the ideological and funding centers of Militant Islam. These are Iran and Saudia Arabia.

We must force Republicanism on them, we must force free markets on, and we have to give them their rights wether they want them or not. If they want to fight us, I say bring it on.

Hmm, i could swear this is exactly what AQ is claiming is happening and is trying to "llberate" islam from. So, it is justified then, for them to potray the wsst as the Great Satan?

Confed999
20 Mar 04,, 16:44
I still don't see a "how".

Ray
20 Mar 04,, 17:37
Confed,

Rome wsas not built in one day.

The British had to hang around for years to change the Indian mind set. Even now, we have folks who are more British than British!:D It is called 'hang up of the Raj'.

Learn from the Britsh. They are the biggest crooks and downright imperialists in the world but they did it so ever smoothly that one feels that they have done a favour!

Sadly for them, we have swamped their country and they are forced to acclaim our 'curry' as basically their contribution!:w00t

Trooth
20 Mar 04,, 18:38
Originally posted by Ray
Sadly for them, we have swamped their country and they are forced to acclaim our 'curry' as basically their contribution!:w00t

Dunno where you got that idea from. Curry is now the national dish of Britain, but there is no pretence it is anything other than an Indian dish.

Trooth
20 Mar 04,, 18:48
Originally posted by Confed999
I still don't see a "how".

I can't give you a how. The reason is i haven't seen any analysis from the west as to what the root causes of the problem are. All we get is "they hate freedom" "they want to force everyone to live like them" so we repsond by curbing their freedom to live their own lives and by forcing them to live like us. Whether they will be better off if the grasp that opportunity is immaterial. Forcing them to change will continue the problem.

This is not a sophisticated level of debate for the challenges that "both" sides on the war on terror face.

The west has decided that the world is a James Bond movie. There are groups of bad guys, they share one thing in common, a desire to be bad. They will work together to be bad. Sometimes they will share common goals in being bad.

And that is it. That is the level of sophistication that has led to 10000 dead people in Iraq.

There isn't any anylaysis into the justification or otherwise of any complaints from those parts of the world that are unhappy with the west but have not resorted to violence. There is no critique of the impact of western policies on the developing nations. It is "our way or the highway", "with us or against us", "Bond or Blofeld", "White hats versus black hats".

Until some sensible, none hysterical analysis is done as to why the west is the "great satan" and why the "the muslims want to kill every non-muslim" we will just be in the situation we are now for decades. There is no solution to a problem that we just don't understand.

Ray
21 Mar 04,, 03:35
Toorth,

I saw BBC Newsnight yesterday. Maybe you would could also see it.

There were a couple of heavyweigths like Kenneth Clark, the ex Advisor of Clinton. one gentleman from some strategic think tank, Mr Fujiyama who wrote 'End of history' and others.

You should also read the Koran. It will give you an insight as to why others feel threatened. Esoteric musings to perfunctorily dismiss the rationale of the Western intellectuals and policy makers may not be correct.

The unfortunate part is that the fundamentalists in Islam have a stranglehold and the Islamic religious diktats are very categorical and beyond flexibility. That is what is very unnerving. It is natural others would be most uncomfortable.

Trooth
21 Mar 04,, 07:45
I'll have a look for the Newnight programme. But i am not dmissing their rationale. I just don't think it has been debated.

There are lots of agenda out there. Everything including pure capitalism, christian and islamic fundamentalism, democractic fundamentalism, racism etc.

All of these come into play. There are those in the western administrations that genuinely believe they can help people, free people, and enrich their lives. There are those that see the war on terror as a means to exercise power, or to gain power. There are those that see it as a great opportunity to increase the oil reserves of the west, or to sell lots of arms or to build an empire. There are those that see that they can liberate their holy sites.

The point is, those agenda are not surfacing. They are simply bubbling along, all hidden and clouded by the simplistic approach that is being taken, and apparently it is disloyal to question these motives.

Confed999
21 Mar 04,, 15:26
Originally posted by Ray
Rome wsas not built in one day.
I know, it took lots and lots of blood and sweat.

Originally posted by Trooth
I can't give you a how.
Then I have to say we keep trying this, instead of continuing to talk only. The people we were talking to weren't allowed to hear us anyway.

Originally posted by Trooth
The reason is i haven't seen any analysis from the west as to what the root causes of the problem are.
There are more than a billion of them, each one has their own motives and lives with 1 thing in common. That one thing is the problem. I contend this debate has been carried out with the leaders of the terrorists for decades, to no avail. Now the people will be set free to decide themselves. If they choose to continue supporting the direct targeting of infants, then I won't feel too bad when it comes to a final solution. By taking out the evil leadership their lives are now in their own hands, and the decision is theirs, rejoin the 1st world or suffer and die.

Originally posted by Trooth
apparently it is disloyal to question these motives.
Blah, blah blah. They can question your loyalty, just as you can question theirs. If that's a problem in the UK then you guys should draw up a constitution allowing it.

Trooth
21 Mar 04,, 15:49
Originally posted by Confed999
There are more than a billion of them, each one has their own motives and lives with 1 thing in common. That one thing is the problem.
This, i think, is the "black hats versus white hats" issues. I don't believe it to be nearly this simple.



I contend this debate has been carried out with the leaders of the terrorists for decades, to no avail. Now the people will be set free to decide themselves.

Assuming all the regimes get toppled, they might have a chance. But a lot of these areas of the world are ruled by local militias that will just use the toppling of regimes friendly to them to fuel the hate and prove their point.



If they choose to continue supporting the direct targeting of infants, then I won't feel too bad when it comes to a final solution. By taking out the evil leadership their lives are now in their own hands,

This hasn't happened in Afhganistan or Iraq. The people are no more in control now than they were then. Kabul may stand a chance, but the rest of afghanistan is reverting back to warlord and ak47 control. Iraq is hardly a model of social well being.



and the decision is theirs, rejoin the 1st world or suffer and die.

They never were in the 1st world. They do not have the traditions that are required to underpin the kinds of futures you are prescribing for them. Their traditions are theocracies. This may be unpalatable, but it was they are used to.



Blah, blah blah. They can question your loyalty, just as you can question theirs. If that's a problem in the UK then you guys should draw up a constitution allowing it.

I was actually thinking of the debate in the US and at inter govenmental level. Plenty of local debate in the UK. Ask Tony Blair who will be lucky if he makes it to the next election as leader of New Labour.

Questioning people's loyalty has nothing to do with freedom of speech, of course. It is to do with sophistication of debate.

Confed999
21 Mar 04,, 16:30
Originally posted by Trooth
This, i think, is the "black hats versus white hats" issues. I don't believe it to be nearly this simple.
Neither do I, that's why I just told you there were more than a billion different shades of hat if you will. Still, it does come down to a choice, with the terrorists or against them. There is no other choice.

Originally posted by Trooth
Assuming all the regimes get toppled, they might have a chance. But a lot of these areas of the world are ruled by local militias that will just use the toppling of regimes friendly to them to fuel the hate and prove their point.
Setting one free is better than none. All can't come at once. Those that use it to fuel the hate choose their side and we should not feel bad to hasten them on to their final reward.

Originally posted by Trooth
This hasn't happened in Afhganistan or Iraq. The people are no more in control now than they were then. Kabul may stand a chance, but the rest of afghanistan is reverting back to warlord and ak47 control. Iraq is hardly a model of social well being.
Like you said, it takes time. BTW, name a place that is a model of social well being. LOL

Originally posted by Trooth
They never were in the 1st world. They do not have the traditions that are required to underpin the kinds of futures you are prescribing for them. Their traditions are theocracies. This may be unpalatable, but it was they are used to.
They were 1st world when the people in England were worshiping the sun and throwing rocks at each other. I don't have a problem with a theocracy that doesn't think purposefully blowing up little kids is a good thing. You assume I want them to live like me, when I just want the people to have a choice. I live where the law of the land is "All men are created equal", and when we go to war it is to enforce that law.

Originally posted by Trooth
I was actually thinking of the debate in the US and at inter govenmental level. Plenty of local debate in the UK. Ask Tony Blair who will be lucky if he makes it to the next election as leader of New Labour.

Questioning people's loyalty has nothing to do with freedom of speech, of course. It is to do with sophistication of debate.
Government debate doesn't exist here. The Republicans say one thing then the Democrats say the opposite, and the reverse. If you guys don't like Tony Blair he's welcome over here, as long as he doesn't run for anything, he's a hell of a guy.

Trooth
21 Mar 04,, 18:06
Originally posted by Confed999
They were 1st world when the people in England were worshiping the sun and throwing rocks at each other.

An itneresting point. So what went wrong?



I don't have a problem with a theocracy that doesn't think purposefully blowing up little kids is a good thing. You assume I want them to live like me, when I just want the people to have a choice.

More children are going to die, at the hands of both the black hats and the white hats, i am afraid.



I live where the law of the land is "All men are created equal", and when we go to war it is to enforce that law.

Figthing that war would mean fighting outside the jurisdiction of that law. Are you sure you don't want them to live like you?

Confed999
21 Mar 04,, 19:25
Originally posted by Trooth
An itneresting point. So what went wrong?
They sold their freedom to a carpetbagger, for the salvation they allready had. A new salesman is now going door to door, offering freedom for friendship, and making a few sales.


Originally posted by Trooth
More children are going to die, at the hands of both the black hats and the white hats, i am afraid.
As things were going before, as things would go if the debate continued, as things will allways be. Show me a white hat that is willing to climb on a schoolbus and kill children and I'll show you a black hat in disguise. I don't find it difficult to differentiate between the two.

Originally posted by Trooth
Figthing that war would mean fighting outside the jurisdiction of that law. Are you sure you don't want them to live like you?
What? That's the law of THIS land. If we are attacked by someone insisting we give up that freedom and live like them, then we have to show them it was a very bad idea. They are the fascists and I don't doubt for a second that if they didn't attack innocents in their own neighborhoods, the fascists would be allowed to be fascists all they wanted. There is no question about jurisdiction.

If I don't want you to live like me, why would you think I want them too? I'm positive that I want them to live however they please, but if they bring it here or to one of our friends, then God help them.

Trooth
21 Mar 04,, 19:38
But now we are embarking on a world tour to enforce that law. My point isn't that it isn't a great ideal, but it is an ideal that has a background and a tradition to support it. To fight that war traditions and gods may have to be fought in places where there are very different traditions. People will have to be killed who won't believe in any law that isn't told to them by god. Those people might have never harmed anyone in their life, but their god and beliefs are under threat. Clearly the attacker must be the great satan, or at least that is how it will appear.

Officer of Engineers
21 Mar 04,, 20:18
Originally posted by Trooth
People will have to be killed who won't believe in any law that isn't told to them by god. Those people might have never harmed anyone in their life, but their god and beliefs are under threat. Clearly the attacker must be the great satan, or at least that is how it will appear.

That may be one reaction. The other is that they run like hell to get out of our way.

Confed999
21 Mar 04,, 21:11
Originally posted by Trooth
But now we are embarking on a world tour to enforce that law.

Originally posted by Confed999
If we are attacked by someone insisting we give up that freedom and live like them, then we have to show them it was a very bad idea. They are the fascists and I don't doubt for a second that if they didn't attack innocents in their own neighborhoods, the fascists would be allowed to be fascists all they wanted.
----------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Trooth
My point isn't that it isn't a great ideal, but it is an ideal that has a background and a tradition to support it.
It does now, but it had to start somewhere. ;)