Confed999

I know, it took lots and lots of blood and sweat.
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.
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.
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.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Trooth

This, i think, is the "black hats versus white hats" issues. I don't believe it to be nearly this simple.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.
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.
Like you said, it takes time. BTW, name a place that is a model of social well being. LOL
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.
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

An itneresting point. So what went wrong?

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

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

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.

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.
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

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

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

__________________
Chimo

Confed999

----------------------------------------------
It does now, but it had to start somewhere.