if it not okay for Us to take over iraq then what about the Weapon of mass desturction, natural resources?
960081
We'll take them also.
350374
Absolutly not!! We wouldn't take the states if bush wrapped it up and  gave it to us with a bow. The states would screw up our economic triumphs and social gains. The us would only be a step in the wrong direction.
523838
If we invade Iran it will be a grave mistake for one they can fight back ,its not as easy as invading Iraq (and we've turned that into an impossible situation). Also my personal opinion is that whilst were pointing the finger at Iran and getting all above ourselves there are bigger nuclear issues  that are being avoided like North Korea and China that have nuclear capability and would without a shadow of a doubt, whilst every ones focus is off them attempt to take over the world. (and could quite possibly succeed)
957367
Many resons, the UN security council stated they had WMD. Iraq is a stratigic point in controlling the middle east. It keeps the fight off American soil to keep the civiilian causalities down.
328970
It all comes down to oil,if you want a bottom line.\nMost of the world's oil comes from the Middle East,which\nhas placed the West at a disadvantage for decades.\nAn American-supported Iraqi government would do much to shift the balance of power in the region in theory.\nIn practice maybe it'll turn out the U.S. should just have kept it's soldiers out of that part of the world,if this whole thing backfires.
666309
I am very concerned over this. As long as we have this administration anything can happen. Did we do anything with international rules in Iraq? If we dont handle Iran with diplomacy and use force we will surely live to regret it.
1123470
No.  we can't just pull out of Iraq before its own government is stable.  Then it would be another Vietnam.  If we just pick up and leave, the country will turn into a police state, much like Somalia did during the Clinton administration.
724969
I'm leaning in this direction too.  I think we should become more deadly and finish the fight before we rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.  Maybe build and fight was a useful tactic before the beehive burst.  We should let the Iraqi's rebuild and kill the fanatics first.  If we use our resources correctly, then cannot another country train the Iraqi army while we rampage?
625487
Might makes right. And the US is the wealthiest and most militarily powerful nation at the moment, so the US gets to make the rules for everyone else.\n\nEspecially nations that have natural resources our largest industries/corporations want to control.
456735
Why we are champions of the free world for it. We must of rid the country of weapons of mass destruction because we didn't find any we overthrew a government, that should be our roll in life. Overthrowing other governments while getting 2500 of ours killed and nobody knows how many Iraqi's. Old men, woman and children was the real problem over there that is why we killed them, and best of all we have ignited a civil war. It just don't get any better then that, unless we can kill a few more baby's in a bombing.
253328
It is not that we like to interfere with the "internal" affairs of other nations. We only interfere when there is no other viable alternative. We entered Afganistan and took out their reigning government because they attacked us. We entered Iraq and removed their reigning government because Saddam was torturing and murdering is own people, his own civilians. We have not invaded and occupied any country in the history of our nation with the exception of America before we took it over as our own. We are not a occupying Army in Iraq or Afganistan because we are not controlling the nation with tyranny and oppression...we are doing the oposite by helping the locals govern themselves.
460003
Nuclear power is not the issue.  Nuclear bombs are the issue. The president of Iran has said he wants to wipe out Israel, which is fine with me, but I doubt if Israel is going to just sit there and let itself be wiped out.  You can bet that Israel has plans to launch a strike on Iran and you can bet the US has a plan drawn up to invade, which is fine also. But I think that if the US launches an attack it should not necessarily be the same way as in Iraq with the goal of regime change.  The US should simply blow up all Iran's nuclear facilities and leave them totally disintegrated with absolutely nothing left but a big hole in the ground; if this means using nuclear weapons then fine.  Just blow the place up and leave it at that, and let the Iranians deal with the mess.  If they try to rebuild it, blow it up again, and so on forever.  Muslims are a very dangerous threat to mankind and should not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, because they will come up with all this Allah jihad holy bullshit as justification to use it, which is all a crock of baloney anyway.
983745
At this point, just leaving Iraq right now with the situation it's in is a recipe for disaster. If you think it's bad now, just imagine what it'll be like without us. On the other hand, it's more of a catch-22 than anything. If we keep staying in Iraq, insurgents will keep killing soldiers. If we leave, however, everything we've done will be for nothing. The closest thing we can do that would be considered winning in my opinion is to have a functioning government, an army that can hold it's own, and basically get Iraq back on it's feet. After that, then we should leave. If there is *no* way we can win the war without anything like divine intervention, then we might as well leave.
550385
I don't think it's possible because people want what is no theirs. the U.S. is a prime example. They will keep taking until they have it all and someone is going to fight back.\nthat said we have Bush as a president and the U.S. will keep electing idiots.\nWeapons of mass destruction. HA!!  he just want the oil and people are dying for NOTHING!
1092756
2nd amendment, baby!  In the 1950s, the USSR determined that a land invasion of the US would be impossible not because of the US Army, but because of armed citizens.  If you think the insurgency in Iraq is bad, you ain't seen nothing - 300 million armed Americans - look out!\n\nOf course, the US Navy would likely reap havoc on the invading forces - the Atlantic and Pacific fleets would intercept the invading fleets and destroy many of the forces before they arrived.  They can't handle aircraft carrier battle groups, and many of their capital ships and troop ships would be sunk, with tens of thousands of foreign soldiers drowning on the high seas.\n\nMeanwhile, US forces currently in Afghanistan and Iraq turn north and invade Kazhakhstan, easily overrunning local resistance and breaking into Russian territory in the Crimean penninsula.  America takes the Caucuses, cutting off 70% of Russia's oil supply and dealing a major blow to the invading nations.  At the same time, US Navy SEALs are dispatched to take over Britian's North Sea offshore oil platorms, cutting Western Europe's oil supply.\n\nBecause the world's internet is under US control, America immediately turns off servers supporting any web sites in the invading nations, dealing a major blow to foreign communication and propeganda efforts that could have been used to their advantage.  Additionally, US military intelligence flicks a switch, cutting off all satellite communications and disabling the operation of any US-made arms and aircraft used by the invading powers.  Suddenly the US manufactured missiles on the French jets can't track their targets, rendering them and countless other weapons useless\n\nBut these are the tactical responses.  The Strategic response is much more engaging.  As we hit DEF-CON 3 and DEF-CON 2 rather quickly, the TRIAD is put into motion - land, air, and sea based nuclear weapons, baby!  US nuclear bombers are airborne and circling over Alaska, waiting for orders to strike anywhere in the world.  Nuclear missile submarines are at launch depth, and the Intercontinental Balistic Missiles are ready for launch.  America assures Russia that it will not be nuked, and proceeds to demand the immediate surrender of all other invading powers under threat of nuclear war.  Countries like UK and France have about 5 nuclear weapons capable of hitting America - but they are likely powered by US manufactured rockets and guidance systems, again rendering them useless.  These countries capitulate almost immediately.  Russia, it's invading force nearly destroyed and it's allies surrendered and beaten, must decide whether to resort to nuclear war, or to call off the attack.  Russia knows that it has nothing to gain by using nukes, so it calls off the invasion.\n\nAmerica 1, Everyone Else 0.  Don't mess with the red, white, and blue.  And do stand as we play the Star Spangled Banner at the formal surrender ceremony.  God bless America!
835088
No, we won't attack either of them.  We'd win a war against either country, but it would degenerate into a hell of a mess after that.  Kind of like what we're seeing in Iraq right now.
138196
get out of iraq as fast as possible. but i guess as long as iraq has oil that is not something america wants to do.