Your first statement seems to ignore wholly the point I made. Freedom would remove their power and go against their beliefs. What's plain IMHO, just getting to your third paragraph, is that you do not understand Freedom. Then, as you go on to take us on a walk in Arab shoes, you confirm that as you utterly fail to note any relevant difference between the free and the not free. When you finally come to discuss trade and your notion that spreading democracy is served best by refusing to trade with "countries that do not uphold democratic principles. That do not have fair and free elections. That do not respect human rights," you describe folks who do not understand freedom (as I was saying, thank-you). You describe folks who are plainly incapable of fighting for Freedom so long as they fight to uphold and further their controlling ways (serving, IMHO, to contradict your assurance that "the Arabs are fighting for their freedom right now, in their homeland," unless you mean those Iraqis who have plainly sided with accepting our help in this).
One would think this would be enough to get through to you. What is taking place is that those who don't believe in Freedom are indeed fighting against those of us who do. Allowing them to pursue their aims might mean pursuing "their freedom" to you now, but not to me, and I feel it does not mean freedom for Arabs in general nor the rest of the world. You are talking about ruthless delusional beheaders and suicide bombers here, who in fact are representative and worse, of "countries that do not uphold democratic principles. That do not have fair and free elections. That do not respect human rights."
Dan B. |
