Ok, here we have a war in which the US topples a dictator. One who has a history of gassing Kurds, harassing other minorites (Shiites), setting up "rape rooms" and otherwise being very politically incorrect. And we not only take down a dictatorship, we put a Democracy in its place.\n\nForget about weapons of mass destruction. Forget about oil. This is a war you liberals should love. If Bill Clinton had done this, we'd have liberals defending this war. We'd have Hilary writing a sequel to "It takes a village" explaining how it was the duty of America to take the  global village bully and put him in his place.
123749
ooooOOoooh Doggies!\n\nThis is a good one. The problem is, they cannot support this effort in any of its forms as its success means their assured failure in the next election.  This war was initiated during a Republican administration. Democrats (liberals) have lost so much power in the course of the last 6 years that they cannot afford to do do anything but counter the momentum that GW has created. Its true the momentum has slowed, and GW has only himself to blame for not rallying more popular support for his programs. The media has never done a conservative any favors and socialist, communist and other left-wing groups have done a pretty good job of pumping out anti American, anti semite, anti capatalist propaganda.
271916
We are fighting a war to protect our way of life.  It seems like many people that are complaining these days have completely forgotten about the attacks on 9/11.  The enemy wants to kill Americans.  They want to kill us in large numbers.  They have no problem with killing women and children.  Wake up!  As for WMD in Iraq, I think they had plenty of time to move the weapons out of the country before we went in.  Some news stories have reported that the WMD's were shipped into the Bekka valley in Lebanon weeks before the war started.  Of course, these reports were never followed up by the liberal media, that's not the type of news they want to report on.
658182
I think you have a grasp on the situation in Iraq, we do have no business there in the first place and in all wars innocents are killed. Americans for the most part have no idea what war does to a country and its people because we have had none here since 1860. The death, the destruction that we have caused Iraq in the name of democracy is just wrong. I know that Saddam was not a  cool dude but we cannot and should not try to right every wrong through out the world. It just isn't possible.
222238
Trust me on this. If We had a Democrat for President and we went to War with Iraq..The outcome would be much different today and it would be accepted. The Liberal Media is what has caused all this drama and lies why we went to War and unfortunatly a lot of people believe what they hear.\nAlso, Sadam was not alowing Inspectors into his Country..That's why we assumed he had WMD's. Sadam broke the peace treaty laws he agreed to. It's all common sense, I guess most ppl in America just dont have it. Sad.\nAnd we didnt invade to get their Oil...how gay is that? If that had been the case why would Gas be so expensive 5 years later?? Again, no common sense.
231533
Americans have the resources to rebuild Iraq but I guarantee we won't do it...\n\nAmericans can be very forgetful and uncaring. The news media will continue to cover "terrorism" in the middle east so that Americans will feel justified in ignoring that section of the world.\nOnly a handful of liberal democrats really care about what's going on over there... we are not strong enough in numbers to help as much as we would like.\n\nWe are not the benevolent healers of the world that the media makes us think we are... We are doing nothing for Darfur because they have no oil or resources that we want.\n\nThe point is - I don't want to be bombed because our presidential administration does not care about the happiness of the rest of the world.
628739
Good question. It's an emotional question so logic if often thrown out. We haven't been attacked and several plots throughout the world have been foiled because of the stepped up security of us and our allies.\n\nAs for why it is not appreciated, I believe that people cannot separate their ideologies /liberal/conservative, democratic republican and judge the proghress that has been made. Pretty much if you are lib/dem you are supposed to hate the war and say it is a failure.\n\nAlso, the draft has been gone for thirty years, and an amazingly large percentage of the population has never served in the armed forced or have any close family or friends who have. therefore, they are extremely uneducated about realities of the military. I think they think we go to foreign countries and spin around in circles, shooting our machineguns.
73193
First off, its about securing access to Middle Eastern Oil.\nSome of the people behind this strategy, Richard Pearle, Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz planned this thing out...when the 9/11 attacks came out, Americans were panicked into letting the president have sweeping war powers.  In other words they acted like sheep - acting out of fear.\n\nNext, the Bush Admin drummed up a fake cause to go to war based on a fantasy that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction - these were NEVER found.\nMost of the support for this arguement came from false intelligence, cherry picked to bolster a justification for the invasion and occupation. \n\nNow, with support for the war erroding at home, we are mired down in a fiasco with no exit strategy in a country where sectarian civil war is already in progress...and possibly getting worse.   Its never a good sign when no one is allowed to drive any kind of a car due to martial law. \n\nIn short, this is about oil and the American people have been lied to.  I don't see it ending until we run this administration out of office...or they run out of steam and mark time the rest of the time they are in office.
394677
the dumb ass american government saw that iraq had a lot of oil and got jealous. so they made up a long story and said they had to protect the iraqi civilians. now they're just killing them (if you wanna call that protect them)\nUS wanted oil, that's the reason. and as for weapons of mass destruction. aparently sadam had some. let him have them, the US has them too. and it´s none of the US' business if they have them in iraq, it´s their land, let them do what they please
176118
I promise to not call you any names. Nor will I rant against Bush.\nHere are some of the problems:\n1. Waging a pre-emptive war on a sovereign nation is against international law and against the world's self-interests. I hope you don't want any country to be able to justify attacking another because the other country might be a threat in the future.\n\n2. Too much evidence suggest that the administration created  the WMD threat to justify their decision. Shouldn't going to war be based on an honest consideration of facts???? Shouldn't the administration be open about its reasons?\n\n3. Yes Saddam was a bad guy, but are you seriously suggesting that we take out anyone we think is a bad guy??? And talk about destabilizing--by what criterion could you possibly judge Iraq to be more stable now than before?\n\n4. Who's talking about returning Saddam to power???\n\n5. WMDs is not an obsession--just one of many reasons to question the honesty and the competence of the administration.
53868
It was necessary for us to create a stable govt. in Iraq to prevent it from becoming a host country for terrorism and to counter the very real threat they posed of producing WMDs.  (I feel we should have waited and taken on Iran or Syria first)\n\nBUT\n\nIt is apparent that democracy is beyond the capabilities of a factionalized and tribally minded Iraqi population.  Therefore, we should get out as soon as possible rather than continue this wastefull experiment in democracy.\n\nHOW we should do it is arguable.\nBut I suggest setting up a US friendly authoritarian government.  One that will have the determination to counter any insurgency using the most severe means.  Yes, I'm talking about a dictatorship.  This might offend some, but it is the only way to effectively govern a nation like Iraq.\n\nOur goal should be somewhat selfish.  We're trying to protect ourselves by establishing stability. We should do so in the way that's least harmful to us. \n\nIf you look at the alternative.  This idea really isnt' so bad:\nCivil war vs. our US led leadership OR\nIslamic dictatorship vs. US. led leadership.\n\nAlso, if you look at history, which was worse:\nShah of Iran or Ayatolah Komeni?\nBatista or Castro?\nChina before the revolution or China under Mao?\nCambodia before or after Pol Pot?\n\nSome countries are destined for dictatorship.  Those that are will be better off under our guiding hand.\n\nOf course this could not work over the long run.  We must have a strategy to totally exit from the region once it is stabilized.  Involvement in the mid-east does not work for us.  We must accept that fact.\n\n!!!---If I've answered your question.  Please remember to vote for my answer! ---!!!
515959
Remember we have a thousand year of history behind us and have survived and co-exsisited. Saddam was installed in power by the Americans. He was financed and armed by the US(to combat Iran). We now have another American puppet in power. Then we paid the price of America's mistakes and today again we are paying the price of America's mistakes with our lives. All we want is America to get out of Iraq and we will solve our own problems. The sectarian violence will not cease unless American's leave our country. They are doing more harm tham good with there presence. Dont they realise, we dont want there "democracy" or way of life. Just let us be. We dont need any help from the Americans. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW.
440199
Draft is a dirty word the liberals like to float and try to get their way. You see, after watching the hearings, all I can say is that if the democrats push and get us pulling out without full completion, then we better be ready for the payback. they like to blame all the insurgent and infighting on our actions and by being there. \n\nThey only think of pull out, cut and run and if we do that, we will, within about a year or less, begin to have attacks on our streets, and of course, that gives the liberals ammunition to say " Bush did it", when it was their policy all along.\n\nWe cant let Congress or opinion polls run the war on terror like we did Viet Nam. Over 54000 people died cause we had on and off bombing of the north, and a bunch of fat head politicians trying to run the show from DC.\n\n\nEvery war we have ever fought, has left troops in a foreign country. Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Korea and Japan, so why not Iraq as a normal tour of duty??\n\nBut before we do anything, lets give the military and the people there a fighting chance to be democratic and have freedoms like we enjoy. We already got rid of the dictator and killer they had running the show.\n\nGive the leaders the tools, get in there, do the job, then get out.
531773
Who cares what those people think.  I'm more interested in preventing iran from franchising out nuclear weapons to all the arab states and then blowing up the world as part of jihad.  Whatever it takes to prevent that is justified and if that includes turning Iraq, Iran, Syria and whomever else needs it into a sheet of glass because the liberals in this country won't allow the necessary oversite to prevent this in a humane way, then so be it.\n\nWhat matters is preventing world war 3, not satisfying idiot liberals.
568969
a) Because, having been attacked on our own soil, we really did not want that to happen again. So, we picked someone who we already knew we could beat (Saddam), in an area of the world guaranteed to tick off our enemies (Iraq, holy sites all over), with the added benefit of there being a brutal dictator in charge so we could tout how freedom loving we were. Now that we've invaded it, the terrorists are blowing up either (1)trained military troops, whose job it is to die for our country (as opposed to children flying to a school field trip), or (2)other Muslims, thereby sowing hatred and discontent between people who will find it easier to kill each other than Americans.\n\nb)Having lost his mind, Saddam decided to thumb his nose at the world community, saying the UN had no power over him, thereby giving us the pretense to invade. We really DID believe, at least some of our leaders, that there was the thread of WMD, so it was a nice reason as well. WMD was the 'slavery in the Civil War' issue, to get support for the war. \n\nc)A HUGE portion of the US military is now dead-center in the middle east. It's called Projection of Power. The most dangerous potential enemies are there...look at Iran's nuclear ambition. It would take a matter of weeks to be in Tehran.\n\nd)Oil...if we need it. We're paying way more for gas than we ever have in the US. This war was not about the oil of the current day...but about oil in the future. At very least, we can leave people in power that will be more friendly to us than have been in the past.\n\nWars are about power and resources. That's what this one was about, but it was more about power than resources. This was the US projecting its power in order for another 9/11 to not occur (on US soil...if Arabs fly planes into the Grand Mosque of Sandy Suffering, that's okay.)
563473
Gee i seem to understand that America had a few problems ourselves after the revolution.  I mean like a previous answerer stated Germany and Japan were not fixed overnight.  The biggest difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that in Vietnam the Democrats would not let the military fight to win, but were more interested in making money on our dead 58,000 American soldiers than doing what needed to be done to help democracy succeed, but now the Republicans, much to the anger of the liberals, have turned the conflict over to the military so that they can do what they need to in order to win.  In wartime someone always makes money, but something you need to keep in mind is that most of the major conflicts America has been involved in the Democrats have squarely planted us in them.  You are so concerned with getting us out of Iraq, and so worried about the soldiers dying there, because Bush got us there, but you have said nothing about the American, and allied troops that still get into firefights in Bosnia!!!  Clinton put us there 11 years ago, and we still rotate troops there, but no says anything about Clinton's screwup!!  If you are going to ask these kind of questions, then at least have the balls, and intestinal fortitude to ask about ALL the places AMERICAN troops are dying in!!!!!
529339
Alex, excellent question!! All of you who insist this is Bush's war, please explain the following:\n\n"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. \n\n"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."  President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. \n\n"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." \nMadeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. \n\n"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."  -  Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 \n\n"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." \n    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. \n\n"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."  \nRep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. \n\n"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."  \nMadeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. \n\n"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." \n    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. \n\n"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." \n    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. \n\n"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." \n    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. \n\n"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." \n    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. \n\n"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction." \n    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. \n\n"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." \n    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. \n\n"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."\n    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. \n\n"There is unmistakable evidenc
161487
The world is full of a bunch of low lifes...and moral trash... the same people who ciriticize the americans are the same cowardly dogs that put their tails between their legs, and did not want to get involved in IRaq. After all, let Saddam slaughter innocent people and destroy nations, it is not their problem that people are being persecuted by terrorists..We would be out of Iraq by now if we had gotten the right kind of help from these pig nations who were more worried about getting oil from sadaam than the slaugher of innocent men, women and children and global terrorism. \n\nanti-americanism is not acceptable....except to other terrorists...like the cowardly dogs that have no morals, that sit around and trash other people...\n\nI have decided I am an anti-european....because there is no one out there in europe, that is worth my respect.