Let me first say that I do agree with some of your points but I have a problem with a few. Your religious analogy doesn’t quite work for me. “You have no right to change a people’s belief in a religion nor do you want to.” Easy to say when you live in a country where religion is under a democracy and there is separation of church and state. How has religious atrocity affected you? Please, before the comments about Bush shoving the bible down our throats (and his doing so does drive me nuts), understand that I am talking about old fashion, Roman, Middle age Europe, Spanish inquisition kind of Church run government. Would you have the same viewpoint if you were an atheist living in such a situation? Would you have the same opinion if in your example, these Christians, Mormons, etc. being “pushed around” were also being burned at the stake for being witches or tortured to confess their sins. What if our government had a different kind of freedom of religion? What if our government allowed each religion to act as they saw fit to any of its members. You wouldn’t be under their rule unless you were a believer and a member, but once a member, always a member. So you couldn’t leave. Would you stand idly by and say, “they want to be pushed around, even as they scream on the stake.” I believe this is a closer analogy to the situation then yours. Your religious people aren’t torturing its members they are simply “pushing them around.” Your point is that everyone has the right to be stupid and weak and I agree with you. But that has nothing to do with dictatorships. If you are going to compare the situation than use an example where religious people are being treated the same way Saddam treated his people. Than tell me you have no right to change a religious belief.

Then again, that doesn’t matter. “You can’t do anything about that”, because you don’t have to. The ability of religious people to commit atrocities has little to do with religion belief. Most of the evil acts committed by religion were under dictatorships and monarchies. Also, most atrocities done by religion went against its own teachings. Therefore, one doesn’t have to get rid of a religion or it’s people’s belief in it to rid it of its evils. You just change the government it resides under. That is, organized religion is accountable to government. So I see little that is in common between the ethics of changing a people’s belief in religion and changing a government a people live under.

Believing you have no right to change a person’s religious belief is a democratic viewpoint and one that can be said because you live in a place where a religious belief hardly affects you. (Again, were talking old school religious affect.) So it seems that political change and structure is more powerful and more important than religious change and structure.

I also believe that the dictatorships in the Middle East have more to do with the economic structure of the countries than the people’s desire to be pushed around. Besides, the people being “pushed around” in your example can always leave. Their submission to the faith is a choice. They chose their situation and/or can leave it at any time. This pressure is not analogous at all to a people under a dictatorship. So can you please tell me the last time the people of Iraq chose to be “pushed around” when they had a legitimate opportunity to be free?

Also, please tell me the amount of total population of the Middle East and the population of Extremist Groups. Do they really represent the Middle East and its population? And if a percentage of the population does support them at least in spirit, is it because they long for the extremist’s religious political structure or because they support the United States getting a black eye? Maybe something else, you seem to know.

You believe we have no right to change a government but if we did than North Korea is the place to do it? So we should only help the least fortunate first and not where it is possible? Is that how you give to charities? Only to the absolute most deserving and no one else until then? In other words, no cutting in the soup line. Are you saying that North Korea with its nuclear bomb would be just as easy a government to bring down as Iraq? Again, we are assuming for argument sake, as your point does, that we have the right to bring it down.  Is it possible that Japan, South Korea, Russia, and China can play a large role in stabilizing them? You notice I said them and not the region. That is not the case in the Middle East. There is not just one country in the region that needs to be stabilized. Many regions of the world are democratic or on the road to democracy. This region is not. Changing Iraq has to do with building regional change through a political and economic structure that will support the future of its people. This will in turn bring pressure to the region. Not over night but in time. That is what will change terrorism. I often hear that we should try harder to change the environment that creates criminals than we do arresting them. This is the same situation. Catching Bin Laden won’t do a damn thing about terrorism. The only way to do it is by building a future for the Middle East and dictators aren’t interested in that. Is this the right way to do it? Again, this point was why choose Iraq over North Korea and so therefore it is assumed we have a right to change a government. That of course, is clearly up for debate. 

The rift between cultures has a lot to do with what one culture (Western) has done to the other (Eastern), not there differences. You bring up WWII. I think how the West handled the Middle East after the war would be good subject to research. My history is not that great so can anyone tell me how often a country has been changed to democracy but then the people willingly changed back to a dictatorship even though the government did everything truly democratic.  I don’t want examples where there never was a true democracy or the democracy economically failed them. Since we are talking about CHARACTER and not conditions, I want an example where people wanted to be pushed around and chose a dictatorship even though they had it good and new it was going to suck. I’m not talking about failed promises of a revolution or coup or being tricked. I mean, I hate freedom I wish I had a fucking master! Also, how normal is that in history.

Lastly, why would we be better off without religion? Do you mean get rid of it now or never had it? It seems that the countries that have separation of church and state are doing a pretty good job discovering through science. And your point about “no more religious segregation.” Again, that can be cured by political change.

It is great now that Saddam has been captured. I am looking forward to finding out how this man stayed in power so long. Seems to be he was at one time closely allied with the U.S., especially during the Iran/Iraq conflict. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend) What, if any, WMD did the U.S. provide Saddam during his tenure? I am looking forward to the “truth” of which countries encouraged Saddam, even after gassing a large section of his own population, the Kurds. Let the facts be revealed.

Pablo you are a complete and total fucking idiot!!! It’s very easy to attack someone’s argument but how about telling me some of your answers. You are so chicken shit!!

P.S. ALLAH HATES YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU STAND FOR!!!!

There, I feel better. I often visit this site and occasionally make a comment but never get involved in any of the fun (debate). I would have given a better and more analytical response but I don’t have time.

OH YEAH YOUR LAZY TOO, BIOTCH!!!!!!!

Yes, sad, very sad indeed.

I’ll be happy when the news stop saying that damned buzzword.  “wmd”

Well, buzz-abreviations if you must.