Pan

Dang, Aeris, you just get better and better over time. Is there anything you're bad at?

"I must offer my thanks aswell since, as you can see, all the people on the other side of this particular topic haven't really been reasonable (points to ''execute him!'' dust scouts, ''Defeater of imperials'' Edrico,e.t.c:D)" As I already stated, I pride myself on listening to others opinions. "Consequences of mistaken post origin... I think that perhaps we should just keep it with assasinating a political leader to be WRONG if done by an country. However, assasination of a military leader by a foreighn country in times of war is alright. Additionally, if a foreighn leader is hit by a stray bomb or was standing in/by a military target when it was hit, that is also not the fualt of the opposing country. Do you agree on this set of political morals?" I agree. If the target was not the county's leader, then they can hardly blame us for their president/king walking into the line of fire. "As far as I know, the goverment will not be changed (except in the sense that it will become democratic. The rules and laws of the country will stay in place) I have heard that the US will take significant care to ensure that the goverment remains of a middle-eastern nature." That's the opposite of what I have heard, but it is possible that I am mistaken. I have heard that Bush plans to go into Iraq, support them in completely changing their ways of life, and basically make them a mini us. I don't agree with that, but if that isn't true, please give me an example of where you heard what you heard. I would be glad to correct my opinion if I'm wrong. "The problem is, they CANNOT choose. And thus, taking out the bad leader is neccesary. As I stated before, as far as I know the only significant way in which the goverment will change is that it will change to a democracy" I'm sorry, maybe I didn't make this clear. I think we should radicate Saddam, but we should also let the people choose their new leader. Isn't that what they truly deserve? "More consequences of mistaken post origin...:D" No harm done. "Only in you're eyes. To me, changing a countrys culture does not make a country a terrorist country because as I stated before, culture is not usually changed in conflict (unless the conflict results in conquest). The only thing that decides wether a country/group is terrorist or not to me is the target that country/group chooses to target." To me, this seems more of a scaled down conquest than anything. We are choosing to target a country. Al Queda chose to target a country. What's the difference? "I guess argument upon this line would be pointless considering I have now discovered you're not dust scout and therefore do not view American foreighn affairs in a different light to the foreighn affairs of other countrys..." Sorry to disappoint you, but nope, I'm not another Dust Scout. "Due to their laws, it is. However, due to the current regime in place, the actual goverment itself is not part of it's culture. Unless a regime is traditional or something similar to muslim/shiite/whatever culture, which I very highly doubt. America plans to change the actual goverment, not the law or rules that that goverment has. America also doesn't intend to change the people or other things which could change the culture" Yet again, not what I heard. But I could be mistaken. "It's a pleasure." "Thank you for accepting my apology" And why would I not? I'm enjoying this argument. "Is this really that difficult a problem to solve? All it takes is the military power. Their is only one problem with Iraq, the fact that it is a dictatorship. Taking a look at how the wars going to go, it doesn't look like removing the dictatorship in Iraq will be an impossible task for America. Of course, the difficulty you are most probably reffering to is the difficulty in changing the goverment from a dictatorship into a democracy without changing anything else. Considering the amount of experience America has with this kind of activity I do not believe it will be difficult to succeed. And therefore I do not think they are arrogant to think that they can properly remove the dictatorship in Iraq" But is it our place? That's what I'm arguing. "Well it is good to know that you regard Americas foreighn affairs with the same fairness as anyone elses foreighn affairs. You see, at the point at which I claimed you were biased against Americas foreighn affairs due to their power I still thought you were dust scout (who has made his dislike of atleast Bush quite clear). It is also good to know that you are quite open-minded" Sorry, not Dust Scout, but Pan. And I'm quite open-minded, thanks for noticing. "Yes,removing Saddam from power is not the same as going to war. But to remove Saddam you have to go to war." Not true. At least we don't have to go to this sort of war. "America would NEVER have received the UN's backing thanks to a certain veto . So if the UN was you're plan for removing Saddam without hurting people then thats to bad. Even if the war against Iraq was UN approved, their would still be bloodshed as their would still be a neccecesity for war. As a matter of fact, the amount of bloodshed would probably be about the same considering the fact that America is waging this war. On that note, it is important to mention that the casualties so far have been VERY low (only about 200-300 injured/killed so far, which is a VERY small number for a war... compared to the 360 000 that have died from starvation or bullets due to Saddams reighn We both agree that Bush was right in his decision to go to war against Iraq. However: In my view I do not think that America will mess up and change the culture of Iraq and I also think that Bush having a little patience would make little difference since waiting for UN support is pointless as their decision is probably one they don't intend to change and obviously nothing in Iraq was about to change (since nothing their has changed for 12 years...)" If we would never have recieved the UN's backing, don't you think that that's a sign to leave it alone? Contrary to popular belief, sometimes the majority is correct. But you also have to remember that though the casualties are low now, we are only a week into this war. Who knows how long this could last? Very true, your last comment is. But that doesn't mean that we should invade. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you there.

Wow, this is getting really fun. Thank you, Sneakgab, for arguing with intelligence and actual points that make some sense. Okay, maybe I didn't state that. But I figured I didn't have to. I'm not arguing with the fact that Saddam needs to be radicated! That fact is obvious to anyone with eyes and a heart. BUT us going in and completely changing there government is another entirely different matter. Let them choose another president, one who is good and kind and understands his people. That is, of course, what this is all about, is it not? Going in and taking out a bad leader? I truly in my heart of hearts agree with that. I just don't agree that we should change them. Oh, and the reason I didn't protest about USA going into Germany was because, um, I wasn't alive! I couldn't exactly protest. Sorry. I see how you could think that terrorist groups are basically the same. So wouldn't that make the USA a terrorist group? I thought you said you didn't hate America... Attacking Iraqis and attacking Saddam are two very different things. I don't have a problem with us taking out Saddam. He deserves to have himself taken out. That's very good, and I think that if that was all that Bush planned to do, it would be perfectly fine. But Bush plans to go in and completely change their government, and whether you choose to admit it or not, their government is a very large part of their culture. Thank you for trying to see my side. In my own personal experience, when there are hundreds of protests going on country-wide, the president's approval ratings drop. But if they don't, good of Bush. I don't have anything against him. I totally agree with you on the view that if Bush should be assinated, Saddam should really gone. It's an honest mistake, and now that's been corrected, no hard feelings. What desicions do I detest? This one, for example. America is arrogant by thinking that we can go into another country and fix every problem. America does some things, but they aren't God. They can't fix everything. I think that America has the exact same rights to become involved in foreign affairs as the next country. Why would I think that that was okay if, say, Britain did it, and if America did, it was bad? That's kind of close-minded, and I pride myself on listening to other's opinions. Removing Saddam from power is not the same as going to war. If we had waited for the UN's backing, this would never have been a problem. We could have easily, without sacrificing the lives of innocent people who are dieing every day over there, radicated Saddam. It's entirely possible. Bush just wasn't patient enough.

Being exucuted or shot down by bombs is not the same as assination. I stated that. Saddam has no right to terrorize to his people. You're right, and I seriously doubt anyone will argue with you. Expecially me. And somehow terrorist groups are just a LITTLE different than the most advanced army in the world invading a country. But just a little. And I would appreciate it if you didn't insult my views, as I do not insult yours. Mentioning culture is necessary. Culture is very important to these people, as you would know if you had done your homework. As I stated before, we don't know these peoples cultures. Kicking out Saddam, good and fine. Messing up these people's ways of life, not good. Not our right, and not our fight. I withdraw the statement about America not knowing that they want this. We know they want this. They want Saddam out. But America still doesn't know everything and all the facts. No. Saddam needs to be radicated. We all know that. Everyone who questions that is kinda crazy. I'm drawing my opinion that Bush's approvals are going to go down by the fact that there are protests going on all over the country, and that there are people like me all over who think this is one of the worst things that he could be doing. I don't hate America. I don't hate Bush. Please don't assume that since I don't agree with everything this country does or has ever done that I "hate" America and everything it stands for. I detest some decisions that Bush has made, and I detest some of America's arrogance, but no. I think America does some great things, but we just made a serious mistake going into this war.

Plus, don't you think that they would want to actually have a real reason to shoot before they have to? They aren't people that are there just for the "fun" of killing people.

That's not very nice. What's the problem with it anyway? It's cheap, simple, would solve many problems (like what species to classify him under...) and we'd be almost certain to get a better replacement. You say it is tolerable to invade someone else's country and kill them but not to kill one person to prevent it? Something's up there... Hmm. let me think...what could be wrong with assaninating another countries leader? Hmmm...IT'S ONLY A WAR CRIME! The leader of the country that ordered that would be tried for doing one of the worst offenses anyone could do. BTW, what right have we to go into another country, one where we don't even understand the culture, and make them into a little mini USA? We don't know for certain that everyone in the country wants things to change. We have NO right to go into a country amd destroy the culture that everyone over here can't even understand. I know that the women over there have it awful and that they deserve to have at least a chance, but still! It's like a second grader going to take a huge twelfth grade test. They don't know what they are doing, and probably deserve to fail. Anyways, if Bush's approval rating is high, it won't remain that way for long.

That's disgusting. Just thought I'd let you know, Ordos. I'm really sorry. Boy, here I am, jumping into one of the most controversal threads on this place on my first run. This should be fun! This was is useless. Of course Saddam is awful. BUT, though the leader is wrong, why do we attack innocent people for no reason? We cannot hate Iraq. We can hate Saddam, but hating Iraq will get us nowhere. Bush, I think, hates Iraq. For his daddy. He's trying to succeed where his daddy fell, and therefore prove a name for himself, though by doing this he is only acheiving to give himself a bad name. And there is no way that those were just military bunkers. We may have extremelly good technology, but still! We will miss eventually. Now on to the money side of it. BUSH CHOSE THE ABSOLUTE WORST TIME! We are in so much debt that it's not even funny! And, since he called the UN useless and went against there wishes, we only have a little support, not enough to pay our debts. AKA Bush made a terrible mistake, and he's not even sorry.