A day of infamy (my take on the war)

[lowzeewee]

if UN is gonna go after iraq for having scuds then they are not going after USA for invading another country without a proper reason,only saying them plan to 'free the world from a threat' and the UN just stands there and watches the conflict,then what is the UN supposed to be for? :O

It is because USA is the main money tree of the UN and the funds go mainly to help Africa and Kofi Annan is an african...i m not being racist but just saying that it is because UN gets most of their COLD HARD CASH from the US.

[Dude_Doc]

I'm sure Edric would love this game:

http://www.devastationgame.com/gameinfo.htm

[lowzeewee]

that guy in the picture looks like eminem ;D

[Dante]

" it would be nice if someone would just assassinate Bush please?"

I am suprised all of you overlook simple statements like this. I mean geesh, it is never tolerable to assasinate a person. And though george bush is questionable as president, any who say it would be best to assasinate him are fudged up.lol

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...

[Acriku]

Scout - his term is near closing, so chill and wait it out. ;)

[TMA_1]

thus speaks the childish backstabber. ;)

Dude dust, it is wrong. You are only thinking like you do because to you it seems okay. a simple utilitarian ideal that doesnt seem outo f place. It actually sounds like you are sinking below a president bush or a saddam because you have no better ideas. just age a bit man and be careful with words.

[Gobalopper]

I saw a poll a while ago that said it was about 56 %, though I'm not sure how old it was. I'll see if I can find it.

You're probably right. Bad times do wonders for popularity ratings.

CBS poll has his approval rating at 67% which is up.

[Acriku]

It'll go one way real quick after this war, depending on how humanitarian aid is done, etc.

[Pan]

" it would be nice if someone would just assassinate Bush please?"

I am suprised all of you overlook simple statements like this. I mean geesh, it is never tolerable to assasinate a person. And though george bush is questionable as president, any who say it would be best to assasinate him are fudged up.lol

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.

[Sneakgab]

''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.''

It is not a war crime because Saddam will probably be executed only after the war is over (even if he does get executed by America rather than under the international council...which I doubt). If he gets killed by bombing thats obviously not assasination

''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?''

What right does Saddam have to terrorize his people? How come it wasnt mentioned that Saddam didn't understand the culture of Kuwait or other countries he threated in 1991 or how the terrorists who attack Israel everday and took down the twin towers didn't undertand those respective cultures? Only because it is America going in do you go on about how ''they don't even understand the culture''. I never seen anyone whining about going into country's with different cultures when it is other countries/groups doing something. Even so, mentioning culture in such a manner as an argument is just totally lame to begin with. Even the small point established in mentioned culture in such a way is to trivial for serious consideration when considering Americas moves.

America is not going to turn them into a ''mini USA''. I'd like to know where you got that idea... Probably straight out of thin air knowing anti-war protestors.

America is going to help Iraq get back on its feet/improve after the war and install a temporary goverment to do so which as far I know will be controlled by middle eastern people.. (Ones which are not demented of course. Even if the country will not be essentially controlled by muslims during the period in which the temporary goverment is active, the country will still retain its culture

'' We don't know for certain that everyone in the country wants things to change.''

Actually, we are QUITE certain. Considering the 30 000 refugees who escaped were unanimous in preffering that Saddam be removed. Of course you could mention the people in the country... but it is obviously impossible to get their opinions (its obvious what they would be anyway... especially considering the numbers of surrendered troops)

'' 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.''

Are you stating that Saddam should be allowed to continue terrorizing Iraq just because you think America don't know what they are doing and are evil? I've already pointed out that America does know what it's doing and I needn't reason with you when it comes to you're deluded and obviously ludicrous views to how America is an ''imperialistic nation owned by corporations' because you will not be reasonable about that matter

''Anyways, if Bush's approval rating is high, it won't remain that way for long.''

What makes you think that? I assume it's you're bias against Bush and America because their is no reason to think that his approval ratings would drop

You're almost as bad as Edrico. I don't understand how you could be so blinded by you're hatred for America (or how you could hate America so much in the first place)

Speaking about Edrico... what the hell happened to him? He used to be amongst the most reasonable and logical people on these boards! Is he like this all the time (j/k Edrico:D:D:D)

[Dude_Doc]

He's probably out protesting. I guess so...

[Pan]

''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.''

It is not a war crime because Saddam will probably be executed only after the war is over (even if he does get executed by America rather than under the international council...which I doubt). If he gets killed by bombing thats obviously not assasination

''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?''

What right does Saddam have to terrorize his people? How come it wasnt mentioned that Saddam didn't understand the culture of Kuwait or other countries he threated in 1991 or how the terrorists who attack Israel everday and took down the twin towers didn't undertand those respective cultures? Only because it is America going in do you go on about how ''they don't even understand the culture''. I never seen anyone whining about going into country's with different cultures when it is other countries/groups doing something. Even so, mentioning culture in such a manner as an argument is just totally lame to begin with. Even the small point established in mentioned culture in such a way is to trivial for serious consideration when considering Americas moves.

America is not going to turn them into a ''mini USA''. I'd like to know where you got that idea... Probably straight out of thin air knowing anti-war protestors.

America is going to help Iraq get back on its feet/improve after the war and install a temporary goverment to do so which as far I know will be controlled by middle eastern people.. (Ones which are not demented of course. Even if the country will not be essentially controlled by muslims during the period in which the temporary goverment is active, the country will still retain its culture

'' We don't know for certain that everyone in the country wants things to change.''

Actually, we are QUITE certain. Considering the 30 000 refugees who escaped were unanimous in preffering that Saddam be removed. Of course you could mention the people in the country... but it is obviously impossible to get their opinions (its obvious what they would be anyway... especially considering the numbers of surrendered troops)

'' 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.''

Are you stating that Saddam should be allowed to continue terrorizing Iraq just because you think America don't know what they are doing and are evil? I've already pointed out that America does know what it's doing and I needn't reason with you when it comes to you're deluded and obviously ludicrous views to how America is an ''imperialistic nation owned by corporations' because you will not be reasonable about that matter

''Anyways, if Bush's approval rating is high, it won't remain that way for long.''

What makes you think that? I assume it's you're bias against Bush and America because their is no reason to think that his approval ratings would drop

You're almost as bad as Edrico. I don't understand how you could be so blinded by you're hatred for America (or how you could hate America so much in the first place)

Speaking about Edrico... what the hell happened to him? He used to be amongst the most reasonable and logical people on these boards! Is he like this all the time (j/k Edrico:D:D:D)

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.

[exatreide]

Sometimes Assanating Forighn leaders can be a good thing.. To bad we didnt take out the shaw of Iran when we had the chance....

Another thing I relized once iraq falls. Who is going to control the oil wells until a new goverment can be establisbed...The good old usa. And since Iraq is part of opec and ships alot of the worlds oil. Couldnt america say "No we dont want oil at 30 bucks a barrel we want it at 20." And completly distabize opec? just a thought....

[Gobalopper]

Iraq's oil wells are going to need upgrades before they will completely change the world price of oil. And OPEC isn't a good thing to begin with in my opinion.

[Egeides]

[quote author=ExAtreides

[Sneakgab]

''Being exucuted or shot down by bombs is not the same as assination. I stated that.''

I do not recall you stating this, but I do trust you when you say that you did

''Saddam has no right to terrorize to his people. You're right, and I seriously doubt anyone will argue with

you. Expecially me.''

Then how could you argue that America does not understand the culture when you admit they have no choice? You could say they could wait longer to go in, but they've been waiting for 12 years and if they don't understand the culture and facts after then, when will they? If you are arguing the muslim culture is different and not simply well known to America then that is not a good point either because what are America supposed to do then? Wait until their culture is similar enough for them to attack?

'' And somehow terrorist groups are just a LITTLE different than the most advanced army in the world invading a country.''

No they are not, terrorists do whatever they can to force their influence on coutnries with very different cultures. If they could invade, they would... and no one would even mention how they don't understand the culture because as they are not a superpower they understand all cultures ::) (terrorist attacks are basically short invasions, as a series of terrorist attacks on a country is like an sporadic off and on war/declaration of war... if they had the power to invade they would be succesful ones to)

No matter the size of the force involved, the groups attacking are still attacking countrys of different cultures

I didn't see people whining about how America didn't understand the Germans culture either when they entered WW2

The fact that you said it is different to most advanced army in the world attacking just shows how you DID bring up culture because America attacked. Because America is the most powerful country, people are always trying to jump on them for everything and even use arguments such as ''not understanding the culture'' that they would not use against a less powerful country/group (as you just pointed out)

'' 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.''

Even if I did not know much about the situation, it is obviously common knowlege that culture is important to the Iraqis. But as I said before, mentioning culture when considering the decision to attack Iraq is a trivial and irrelevant statement. Obviously, it is foolish to consider cultures when planning on removing a regime or not. The question is: is it right to attack Iraq?

Either way, the culture of Iraq would not be harmed or changed. Why would a culture be affected by a war of this nature unless a regime was installed by the victor?

''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.''

As I said earlier, when will America know the facts sufficiently? It's been 12 years... longer if you count the preperations before the gulf war. Imagine if America waited more than 12 years before deciding that they knew enough about the Germans and their culture before deciding that they knew enough to attack Germany?

Besides, everyone knows this is a war against Saddam and his regime, not the Iraqis (which is why a war of this nature would not affect the culture of Iraq... how any war that does not involve conquering/general nastiness a/to country would be dangerous to a countrys culture is beyond me anywayas

''No. Saddam needs to be radicated. We all know that. Everyone who questions that is kinda crazy. ''

Then you virtually agree that culture is not a sufficient reason to not attack Iraq.

''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.''

Protests have been going on for a while now, yet his approval ratings have been still raising steadily. I believe that you may need to re-evaluate the situation, although I agree it is highly natural to assume that his approval ratings would be going down considering the protests

''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 apologize for the assumption I made, but I actually thought you're post came from that dust scout fellow is does appear to be blinded by hatred (What other kind of person would think that Bush should be assasinated without thinking that Saddam should be killed?)

'' I detest some decisions that Bush has made, and I detest some of America's arrogance, but no. ''

Which decisions do you detest? And how is America arrogant? Don't tell me you're on of those people who think that America thinks it owns the world because it has recently been interfering in foreighn affairs? They had to defend themselves when the Al quadae decided to pop their ugly faces into existence and took out the taliban to boot, which they did out of the kindness of their hearts... though I admit that they may gave taken out the taliban because of the fact that they were probably the primary supporter and funder of the Al quada. Of course theirs Iraq to, but they've been kicking out UN inspectors for 12 years now which suggests that they have WMD and they they don't take the inspectors or the U.N seriously (which means that they are even more likely to have WMD as they aren't afraid of the U.N or their inspectors)

You probably have other reasons to think America is arrogant, however, other than their intereference in foreighn affairs... so never mind:D

'' I think America does some great things, but we just made a serious mistake going into this war. ''

In what way? I thought you said that anyone who does not think that Saddam needs to be removed from power is insane? Surely you understand that removing Saddam from power means going to war...

[Pan]

<snip>

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.

[Sneakgab]

''Wow, this is getting really fun. Thank you, Sneakgab, for arguing with intelligence and actual points that make some sense.

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)

''Okay, maybe I didn't state that. But I figured I didn't have to.''

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?

'' BUT us going in and completely changing there government is another entirely different matter.''

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

'' 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.''

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

''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.''

More consequences of mistaken post origin...:D

''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...''

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.

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...

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.

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

''Also remember that America is not attacking the Iraqis but is attacking Saddam...''

''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.''

It's a pleasure. :)

''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.''

Thank you for accepting my apology

''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. ''

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

'' 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.''

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

Removing Saddam from power is not the same as going to war.

Yes,removing Saddam from power is not the same as going to war. But to remove Saddam you have to go 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.

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...)

[Pan]

"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.

[Sneakgab]

"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.

I've heard it several times on the news. As a matter of fact I just heard it yesterday

Bush qoute:

''When we enter Iraq and remove the regime, we will take care not to upset the culture and the lives of the people their'' ...(ok fine, I don't remember exactly what he said and it may have been somebody else who said... but you get the idea:D)

BTW, where did you hear that bush plans to transform Iraq into a mini US? Perhaps you may have heard/think that the US are not planning on taking care not to upset the culture, but I can't imagine where you heard/how you thought they would make deliberate attemtps to change the culture and lifestyle of Iraq and its people

"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?''

After a temporary goverment, they will be able to choose their leader. It's just that after the war is won their must be a temporary goverment instated for the sake of peace and stability while humanitarian aid and other things are carried out.

To me, this seems to be the most effective and sure route to letting the people choose their democracy.

''"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?''

Sorry, what I meant by their target was that a terrorist group/country deliberately and determinedly attacks civilians whilst a non-terrorist group/country would not

To me, the scale of an attack and the target of an attack is irrelevant unless the target of that attack is civilian.

''Sorry to disappoint you, but nope, I'm not another Dust Scout.''

Dissapoint me? You are jesting right? ;D

"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.

''"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 whose place is it? Perhaps it would be the Iraqis place, but they are definetly unable to do anything about the matter

It is rarely anyones place to do anything but sometimes that someone should still take action. For eg: you are travelling a foreighn country and some horrible natives/criminals/extremists (from some rather disliked and small political party) are trying to kill a few tourists.

Obviously it is not you're place to act because you are a foreighner and the situation involves foreighn politics, but the correct course of action to take is clear and though it may be the tourists place to act or perhaps some other citizens of the countrys place to act, neither can act because the tourists are busy getting killed and the citizens of the country are sleeping soundly in their beds...

I know that this example might not mimic this particular situation in an analogical sence but the point is that it is rarely you're place to act when something comes up but it may still be neccesary

Was it Americas place to act in WW2? or perhaps the cold war? Probably not, but they did so nonetheless

''"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.''

What alternatives do you have? I don't see anyway else to remove Saddam from power. Even if some American assasinated him, which we agreed was morally wrong behaviour of a country in foreighn political affairs, one of his similarly evil sons would take his place (and weve all heard about Saddams insane evil family...)

''"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.''

It is very debatable that the UN form the majority. First off: dictators have more power than the US and Canada in the the UN... so if you are deciding the majority in terms of population then that means that a few men (dictators) hold more power in the UN than the entire population of America,canada,china,e.t.c because those countries only get a single vote as far I know.

Additionally, the UN's reliability and legitimacy is highly questionable when they want Lybia for head of human righs and Iraq for disarment. The latter is even worse than the former because it is well known that Saddam is attemting to build WMD

''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?''

Well the idea is that the war only lasts a month or two...

''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.''

If my last comment was true, then why not?