There are no weapons of "MASS" destruction and we have Saddam, why are we still in Iraq?
442773
Give me a\nC  rude Oil\nH  alabertan (The company Chaney runs)\nA  merican Patriotism (We have to blame someone for 9/11\nN  uclear Fear\nE  vilness\nY? because we can
236415
Saddam ruled because he did all of the killing.  Previous to him they killed each other.  And as soon as we leave, they will start killing each other again.  Saddam was contained (arrogant, but contained) and he had no WMD or had ever attacked anyone who didn’t' touch his boarder.  He was a evil POS, but less people died per year under his watch then have died each year since he's been out.\n\nWhether we leave now or in 10 years, our silly little installed Iraqi government isn't going to stop 300 years of civil war.  They don't want our help - they just want to kill each other.\n\nWe should have never gone in.  Someone up high in our government should have done a bit more research and listened to the experts that this was not a good idea.  Instead, we should have kept all of our forces in Afghanistan where we could have actually made a difference.
703916
The Iraqis didn't destroy the American military; there have only been just 2837 US military killed since 9-11.  Compare that with 400,000 US dead in WW II and you can see that Iraq is basically nothing more than a 'training exercise' to keep military tactics, strategies and reflexes honed.\n\nAnd yes....duh...America is still the one and only superpower.
1006748
we are in iraq to prevent MORE violence in the us. the bush lied quote is dead. we found wmds just this week in iraq 500 biological weapons grade artillery shells with sari gas and mustard gas but you won't hear about it in the mainstream media. if we leave now as sen. kerry wants the jihaddists will follow us back to the us. you want to fight the jihaddist in iraq or illinios . take your pick and don't be blind by democrats
870944
The is no need for evidence as to whether Saddam had WMD's, of course he HAD them. The U.S. sold them to him when he was an ally in the 1980's.As to where they are now, he used quite a few during his years in power before Desert Storm, probably used a few more since then. As to where they are now, if Bush and his boys weren't able to find them, is there a possibility that they are truly gone and Saddam told the truth, or is that not liberal enough a question?
1084037
This is the wisest decision you have taken to yourself, your family and your future. Being in Iraq for so-called search for weapons of mass destruction is nothing other than terrorising the lives of other people who belong to a country, religion, culture etc different to yours. It does not make any complete sense to continue this war.
965270
Iraq was about supposed weapons of mass destruction not 911.
793527
Iran has no weapons of mass destruction but it has oil.  It might suffer the same fate as Iraq.
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.
945606
There was no compelling reason why Saddam had to be deposed. There was no nuclear program to speak of and IAEA inspectors were at work in Iraq verifying this on the eve of the US invasion. Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US or one of its close allies. Even if Saddam was a threat, what can justify dismantling Iraq's entire, sovereign government and occupying the country for 4 years? The US could have had Saddam assassinated, covertly, installed an new regime, and left. The infrastructure for the government and everything else! would have remained, and a few military strongmen could have fought for power between themselves.\n\nInstead, the US has brought mass chaos on the country. There are new atrocities every day 100 + scientists were just kidnapped in Baghdad. The best the US is now hoping for is a "stable" government in Iraq. It was a peaceful country with a low crime rate and Saddam had been restrained for more than 10 years and was willing to deal to remove economic sanctions.
906091
Bombing is pointless they built there facilities with our bombs in mind. Thus any attack would be worthless as the facilities are way underground and well armored. Invasion as Iraq proved is quite out of the question. The best response is to let them have there toys and let them know that they have now made themselves targets for our nuclear arsenal. This kind of deterrence has worked to keep nuclear powers in line before and will again. No matter if the govt is full of religious or political fanatics in the end they are human and don't want to die if it can be avoided.
590120
a) Because, having been attacked on our own soil, we really did not want that to happen again.  So, we pick 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.)
261968
The main reason is because Sadaam Hussien was a tyrant who tortured, raped, and suppressed the inalienable rights of the Iraqi people.  \n\nBritish and U.S. Intelligence had strong evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and he broke his agreements with the United states and the U.N. by refusing to admit weapons inspectors into the country.\n\nSadaam and other Iraqi leaders, openly supported terrorist groups.\n\nIn short.  Iraq was the biggest threat to our national security since WWII.
733215
I'm not sure what your point is - they never did find evidence of WMD's in Iraq, and there was no legitimate connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.  (I'm with you on the 9/11 bit.)  What do you want the extreme-liberals to learn - to deny reality?
1139307
First of all we did not take over Iraq.  Iraq has its own government (Thanks to the USA) and they make their own rules and laws. We are their to keep the county from falling apart.  You are right about it not being about 9/11, it is for other reasons.  Iraq is the country the took over another country when it invaded Kuwit in the early 90's.  After we kicked them out they have broken over 20 UN resolutions which were put on them by the whole wrold not just the USA.  They consistaly shot missiles at our planes which were patroling their airspace (if thats not an act of war then I dont know what is).  They have used WMD's and would refuse to let weapons inspector into there country. Us going into Iraq was voted on by our congress and by the UN secerity counsle, both of which agreed that Saddam needed to go.  And for your "Bush is a oil hungry Mad-man" comment.  We have not taken one drop of oil from the Iraqi people that oil belongs to them. If you want proof of that just look at the gas prices.
525034
our troops will stop dying for that particular cause and Iraq will probably revert to a war torn arena that is governed by warlords and/or different religious factions until the most powerful one is able to take control, which will probably/definitely be another Saddam.... then you will have another situation unlike the previous and we can start all over, probably with a US leader that will not invade but will allow a military buildup and then we can just let them invade us..... after all, the only thing most (not all but most) of the governments in that part of the world want is the complete destruction of the west.... which includes us and anyone that is on our side................. so while no one wants what we have there now.... the choice is finish it and get out or get out and let them finish us............... our choice.
614570
Our criminal leaders did not invade Iraq to "help" anyone but themselves.  They staged 9/11 to scare us into supporting whatever they decided to do.  Those of you who do not understand this, WAKE UP.