Did that. Didn't notice much change for the better.

Had we done it properly it might have worked. The minute we entertained the idiotic notion, however, that Arabs were somehow interested in cooperating or establishing a democracy is when the plan got flushed down the john. Adding Iraq as a U.S. territory would have saved thousands of American and Iraqi lives that have since been lost, and would have "reformed" the behavior of almost every neighboring country ... much the way Libya suddenly "saw the light" and radically modified its behavior once the American military was parked in the garage next door.

This entire disaster violates GenghisTheHun's 6 P's axiom: Proper Preparation Prevents P*ss Poor Performance.

The problem here was p**s poor planning and, apparently, an ignorance of this "nation" on the part of Bush and his advisors. Iraq consists of three former provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Three sects who basically hated each other were forced to coexist under corrupt monarchies and despots. For Bush to have believed that these people would throw roses at our tanks, form a Jeffersonian democracy, then abide in a country where Shiite dads sat beside Sunni dads at baseball games was naive, to say the least.

There were no weapons. There never was a connection between Iraq and 9-11. There was no coherent plan. Oh, we are now moving more troops to the capital to help stop the Civil War that our government claims isn't/won't happen! Whatever gradiose wet-dream fantasy dubs had for his holy-war/crusade it is clearly getting more laughable by the day. Come to the light kids, it only hurts for a minute. . .

Oh,yeah...THAT helped....

Interestingly enough, terror attacks in Israel have gone down overall since we invaded..

PBEAV, Wow, again, nailing it! Someone forgot to tell Osama and Saddam that when Bush got elected, the Daddy party was moving in to power and the Mommy party was leaving. We have almost 150,000 young men and women in harm's way over there, and we're not going to pull a disastrous pull out now. Unless we elect Kerry or Nader. So, you peaceniks, put the Mommy party back in power if you dare to, but the Jihad won't be called off just because we switch leadership. Rather, it will be read as a sign of weakness on the part of the American people and barbarians recognize weakness whether their enemies realize it or not.

Yes, this was a sucess.

Um... Didn't we do that already?

That really helped didn't it!

Iraq was a concern that needed to be taken care of. I don't believe that it was necessary to invade Iraq with the purpose of changing their regime however. It is now coming out that a small cabal of civilian hawks known as neoconservatives in the Pentagon and in the office of the Vice President exaggerated the evidence for going to war with Iraq. Charges are being brought in federal court against key figures in the intelligence mess, most of these people have come from the vice president's office. They want to blame the CIA for the mishap, but it's obvious that they suggested that the evidence wasn't there to justify going to war with Iraq. I supported the war with Iraq on the grounds that they were indeed harboring weapons that could threaten the US at any time. They weren't really a threat to the US. Indeed, even if Iraq had the arsenal that they had during the Gulf War, they would not have been a threat. I believed that if we went into Iraq, it would have to be done with a certainty that they were a threat to American and world interests and that we would have a coalition of Western and Arab powers gathered together to bear the burden of the occupation and to give legitimacy to our cause. It is now obvious that we entered this conflict with a sense of hubris. It was said that we absolutely had to get Saddam, to hell with all else. Since 1991, we had been maintaining Saddam largely de-fanged. I believed that there were more pertinent issues that we had to take care of. Saddam's connections to Al-Qaeda were sketchy at best. We know he had weapons because we gave it him during the 1980's. The big question was whether or not they were a significant threat to us. Deterrence was working; Saddam had his weapons programs mothballed, but he certainly wasn't about to use it on us lest he invoke the wrath of the rest of the world. Saddam may have been an uneducated and deluded man, but madman he was not. Indeed, he had a set of options before him from the onset of the war. If Saddam admitted that he had no weapons, he would have been probably overthown by way of a coup; in Arab societies, weakness cannot be tolerated. Saddam was not about to give up the power he had with the people. In his mind, he believed that he had a better chance going up against the Americans than having to deal with the coup. The real purpose behind this war was to gain a foothold in the Middle East, we persued a forward strategy of bringing Western values to the region while securing Israel's interests. Iraq was seen as a logical starting point because Saddam was so weak that we knew he would fall within a few weeks. Bush's people were essentially going on very optimistic thinking. So optimistic that they believed that they didn't need any strategy for a re-construction, which we can all agree was a largely muddled affair from the beginning. The problem was that the people didn't want Saddam or the American troops. Ironically enough, what was seen as a tactic to increase US power in the Middle East will only weaken us in the long term. If we pull out anytime soon, the country will break out in civil war. But we're not going to secure the situation on the ground anytime soon as well because the Iraqi's don't see us a liberators, they see us as imperialists. I hate to sound negative, but it's a no-win situation that we're in here. Meanwhile our military is becoming way too overstretched along with government budgets at home. All of this threatens average Americans in that living standards will eventually be affected by all this. Even worse, the very credibility of the US is being threatened as well. The justification for going to war was based on faulty intelligence that might have been as the British say sexed up. We're losing credibility and goodwill with other countries and that is the real threat to American power. The credibility gap is becoming huge for the Bush administration. After 9/11, we unquestionably followed George Bush believing that behind every corner lurked an evil terrorist. We're finally beginning to question whether or not Bush's strategy in the war on terrorism is really making us safer or not. I don't believe that liberating Iraq made us any safer. Indeed, it probably made us less safe; we have to realize that Muslims consider our values largely foreign. They want freedom and democracy, but on their own terms. It is arrogant to think that the American way works for everyone. In the long haul, the terrorist threat is going to go up. I hope that Bush decides to take an honest approach with the American people and the world if they want to repair the damage caused to their credibility. For better or worse, we need the goodwill of people in foreign lands if we expect to maintain a dominant security position in the world. Unfortunately this isn't going to happen in a highly charged election year where partisans are taking a hold no prisoners approach. It's a shame because the truth is somewhere in there.

Funny how this choice has the least ammount of explanation in it's wording. Probably 'cause it's the best. We should have gotten Sudam back in the early 90's. We should have started a war against terrorist long before 3,000 people were killed within minutes by ruthless killers, who don't have any conception of what freedom liberty and capatalism are(or atleast their purposes). That is a declaration of war. I am 100% aware that their are some loonies out there who believe that Bush was 'behind' the attacks....or 'he knew about them'. Now, I would take these charges seriously if they were coming from someone elses mouth. The fact is, the people who are saying these things have been proven to be liars in the past. So...they cannot be trusted. And.....many of the allegations have been disproven already. How does this pretain to Iraq? Well....there are also some people who say that Sudam had nothing to do the Sept 11th attacks. But recently we've been finding that there are terrorist training camps in Iraq that were training Al-Quida soldiers. Sudam was also paying suicide bombers to commit their brutal acts. Also....we have this pay-off list found, with people from countries that were the most opposed to the war in Iraq....hmmm. Turns out, that the people saying this is just for Bush's oil and political gain, were one's who really had that in mind for themselves. To me it seems....all logic points toward the Bush administration being right, and to deny this....you have deny quite alot of facts. The reason this is not another vietnam, is because we already occupy the country and most of Iraqi's are glad we are there. That will only mean it will get better, not worse....like some doom and gloomers seem to think will happen. Look at what is already happening due to our course of action. Muammar el-Qaddafi's has given up his weapons and alot of people didn't even know Libya had them....Well, would you look at that. Do you think this would have happened if we didn't go into Iraq? And another thing. This whole sovernty issue is not applicable in the case of murderous dictaters and countries who have treaties that they don't comply with. Once a leader knowingly and deliberately conducts such as Sudam and many others have done in the past(vietnemese), there right sovernty is lost. I hate it when I see people in this country(USA) give more benifet of the doubt Sudam than to Bush. It's almost to the level of Jane Fonda taking photos with the enemy while our soldiers were getting slaughter by the very people she hung out with. Sometimes the right thing to do is the hardest thing to do. Sacrifices need to be made. If you want to live a world with no alarms and no surprises, this is not your world. And it doesn't have to be perfect, but it should still be promoted toward tha goal...'cause lowering expectations is the worst thing you can do. Sometimes war is the only way to achieve piece, or to reach the goal of a such a huge problem.

Look, this may have had to happen at some point. I take issue with the timing and methodology. For example, why not have brought NATO in first using the same human rights rationale applied in Kosovo? Then you could still pass 1441 for WMD and get inspectors in, but you would have an international force waiting in Kuwait as leverage. Finally, to add a final icing of legitimacy, put Hussein on trial in the international criminal court, and give him a year to clean up his act (instead of 6 months). Then, if he is in violation (which is likely), go in with the everyone's blessing -- even the french!

Invasion of Iraq! How ridiculous! Nations must now be content with the extent of their national borders no matter how powerful or influential. An invasion serves no one's purpose except for creating a viscious cycle of imperialism and unilateralism. it will leave a lot of the international community at the mercy of stronger nations. And after the invasion, who next. We will then have to rename Earth as the USA. Unacceptable. The US has done what it felt it needed to and it is time for the international body to take the situation under its wing. The US should ideally move out now, back to is turf, across the Atlantic. Please, there is no scope for such extremist views as invasion.

This is funny, because this action has already been undertaken with disastrous results. Absolutely nothing the US tried to do in Iraq has succeeded in any way. It's also destabilized the region and accelerated the proliferation of WMDs and the growth of terrorism. So, in hindsight, this was completely the wrong thing to do, although most of the people I know could have told you this a year ago when the war was just a focus for debate.

We did that already, I don't see the suicide bombings stopping in Israel.

I'll accept an apology from the libiots now. We have given 25 million more people there freedom. That alone was worth the invasion. No more innocent Iraqi civilians will die anymore. The Iraqi people clearly want us there, its stupidity if you still think we are not wanted. Apparently some of you haven't seen the mural of the 9-11 picture with Saddam in the background which was found in one of the palaces. This was no fight, this was no where even as close as Vietnam, as some low IQ'd people still think. We have not killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, weve given all of them what theve always wanted: freedom. Watching Iraq children praising our troops calling Bush "hero". Its really a shame for them to call us hero's while people here call the elected President a warmonger. As for the protests- go home already. Protesting is one thing, civil disobeidance is terrorizing the community, you are a terrorist if you are stopping ambulances, blocking streets, etc. Watching the Iraqi people finally praise us and fight against Saddam has made me really happy to be an American. Im proud to be a citizen where we have given 25 million people there freedom.

I don't think any "libiots" will ever be apologizing! If anything, this entire Iraq affair has shown just how inept, clueless and arrogant the Bush team is. Iraq is a hellhole right now and that is an indisputable fact. No food, clean water, or fuel. Crime is out of control, raw sewage and garbage on the streets, hospitals with no supplies and an entire city held hostage by the reigning anarchy. My Iraqi friend who has family in Baghdad says that anger towards Americans is reaching a boiling point and that one of her relatives died last week because the hospital did not have any insulin for his diabetes. Thay says a lot about how inept Bush is- he managed to go into a country that was already a cesspool of misery and made it even worse. The only thing Bush has shown any compassion for is the oil fields which were lovingly secured within hours of moving into Iraq. So WHY WHY WHY would any "libiot" apologize for anything??? I think Bush owes an apology to the Iraqi people. He invaded that country and did not do a thing to take care of the people in the aftermath. What a mess. What a sorry sorry mess!

A cool idea and something I would have donen if I were president.

I note Bush has sent 1,000 extra troops to search for WMDs because so far they haven't found any. What a surprise! These most likely WERE all decommissioned. What's the betting though that some will be discovered now that US intelligence is looking for them, yet when Blix and his UN team were searching, he asked for advice from the States for their exact location, and got no response. How odd then that the States says that it may take a long time to find them; isn't that what we were all asking for - time to search - and Bush had no patience? If theses WMDs are there, then why is Bush against Blix going in again? Whilst every person on this planet would want freedom for the Iraqi people, The saddest thing about this whole affair is not only the damage done to International relations and to those who died on all sides but that the lies and deception on the part of the White House are so flagrantly transparent!

This issue is so controversial- it is even so controversial in my mind that I cannot seem to make up my mind on this. While I initially had a pre-disposition of being unsupportive of the war, I now seem to agree with it more and more. However, I do not agree with the methods in which we are using to instill democracy in Iraq. We sent our boys over there to fight a war against a murderous tyrant who "possessed nuclear weapons" which he shockingly did not use even when he came-a-knocking on his door. I'd say when things get tense- that'd be when I'd use my nuclear and chemical weapons, wouldn't you. No, instead he runs off into exile. Makes a whole lot of sense to me. Meanwhile, the other two nations in the Axis of Evil who pose a greater threat (notably North Korea) know that they are next and are scrambling more than ever to defend themselves in the event of an American declaration of war on their nations. I really like how Bush was able to convince much of this country to support the war by magically pulling this "Sadamm was responsible for 9/11" lie out of his hat. I suppose that next the dictator of North Korea will have also had a hand in 9/11; perhaps Al Gore was involved and talking with Bin Laden in his cave; hell, maybe even Larry Flynt was involved. President Bush using 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq really angers me. I have become more supportive of the war over time, but I believe that he can find better ways of convincing Americans that he is right than lying. And the recent budget that the President proposed called for a significant reduction in funds for Veteran's Affairs, so our soldiers who fought overseas and risked their lives will not have proper care when they return from the madness. Meanwhile, Bush thinks that another tax cut is more important than taking care of our troops and protecting our troops. Sounds like someone has a bit of prioritizing to do here. I agree that this was probably the right thing to do for the sake of freedom and the will of mankind, but the motives for doing it and the methods in doing it are questionable. First we were going to go into Iraq to stop him from using his WMD; then we were going to go into Iraq because he had something to do with 9/11; and then we were going into Iraq to free the Iraqi people of a hideous monster? So which is it Mr. President? Have you any proof that Hussain was involved in 9/11? Where are the WMD? Can you be so sure that all Iraqis will welcome us with open arms (espescially those whose families were perhaps killed by our bombings). The Koran is a book of laws which Arabs live by- I do believe that they want democracy over there, but by their own terms. I believe that President Bush intends to instill Iraq with his idea of democracy, and not theirs, which will cause some trouble. And as far as the U.N. goes- I really think that it has become so ineffective over the years, putting Libya on the Human Right's Commission and giving France a veto power so their ungrateful jackasses can be spiteful and go against the war simply because of its grudge against the same United States that saved them in WWII. I surely hope that our troops return from Iraq safely and that Mr. Bush is indeed right about this war and its outcomes.

if you are part of the american military industrial complex and want to test new weapons on the sub human iraqi army, or if you are a good christian american citizen who deserves the right to cheap fuel for your gas-guzzling SUV, then invading iraq is a good idea. if, however, you realise that invading iraq = more terror, then its a bad idea

We should have finished the job in 1991. Either we do it now or we do it later. If we wait a lot of innocent people are going to die. Nobody wanted WW II so the USA waited for Japan to give it a an excuse to enter the war. Ask your self do we need another excuse may be another 9/11. If we do not attack and Saddam starts using chemicals or worse yet, gives them to terrorists how are all the want a be hippys and various peace mongers going to live with them selves. Wake up World it is not a matter of if but when.

To quote Bluto Blutarsky from Animal House: "Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no."

For all you morons who gave this a one star i have a nice little story for you. It all began in the mid-thirites, when Hitler and his "happy-fun-lets not worry about it" gang were causing trouble in Europe. Meanwhile back in the US a few limp-wrist types started waving the "peace flag" when a couple Americans with brains began to push for war. This peace orginization, called the "America First" committee lobbied for Nazi appeasement, rather than go to war...and stop the Nazi machine before it got too big. "American lives would be in jeopardy" they cried. Well, once the Nazi force was in full swing...1941...ah, I think even you frisbee throwing granola heads know the rest! KABOOM!! more Americans dead!

This is a perfect example of the perfidy and amoral diplomacy of International bodies. For 12 years, The Iraqi regime after suffering a grievous rebuke for its invasion of Kuwait has continued to ignore, cheat and deny cumulative mandates intent on protecting Iraq's neighbors and the world at large. To what end, the German and French governments who have profited in the rebuilding of much Iraq's destroyed infrastructure are now protecting them from the logical consequences of their failure to co-operate with the UN. The complete destruction of this Iraqi regime and the draconian dismemberment of the country with its division of these spoil to the Neighboring friendly regimes (With the lion's share going to Turkey.) is best strategy for the region and the world. To borrow from Machiavelli and the Cato Severus: “It's good to be loved...but if not loved, feared”

Yes, we should invade Iraq. Saddam Hussien presents a big threat, just as big as bin Laden, if not, bigger. Everybody knows he has the weapons, so are we gonna sit on our hands and wait for him to attack? We shouldnt. We should beat them easily, and I mean less than 1000 casualties, and a month long war. There would be other benefits of an attack, however. It gives us a great position to execute our war on terrorism. It puts pressure on Saudi Arabia to cut their terrorist ties. And we get cheaper gas prices. Whats so bad about that?

I just learned that UN inspector Blix found proof of Saddam's nuclear bomb plans. See the AP, Reuters or telegraph.co.uk. You won't find it in the liberal controlled media. They always cover up things like this in a deliberate attempt to show the world that Bush is full of sh*t. We already know he has chemical warheads. Oh but they were empty. Did it ever occur to you that people hide evidence. Remember when Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors in 1998? He was obviously hiding something then. If we would have pressured Saddam to comply with UN inspectors since the 1991 Gulf War resolution then we probably wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Then Clinton took office and the inspection efforts went to hell. Clinton never lifted a finger to support the UN and make Saddam comply. You liberals are so anti-war that you hide or overlook evidence suggesting we need to defend ourselves because "War is wrong!" and "People die!" Tell me something. Since when did liberals give a sh*t if people lived or died? You place fish, trees and bugs above human life! You are the very reason the security of this nation is so low to begin with. Go to Hell! And take Dan Rather and the liberal media with you!

Anybody that thinks that we can "negotiate" with someone like Saddam must believe that we negotiated Hitler into loving Jews. You pacifists that claim, "you can no more win a war than win an earthquake," are really no more than history challenged left-wing morons. Wake up! Understand that us "imperialists" could have had all of Iraq's oil out of the ground 2 weeks after the first conflict, and it could've been the 51st state if we were so inclined. We're not in this for selfish purposes. There are Kurds that would be happy to come here to tell you how well Hussein treats his people. And since you hate the U.S.A., I'd be happy to send you to Iraq in their place.

Invasion of Iraq only helps one group of people: big oil people. The Iraqi people will be free from Saddam Hussein, but who will replace him? We thought we could fix Afghanistan, but its totally collapsed and the "government" only has control of Kabul. People think that it will make this country safer, how? Saddam Hussein is concerned first and foremost with maintaining power, he knows damn well that if he attacked anywhere ever again the US would turn Baghdad into a parking lot. The only forseeable benefit is that since Iraqi oil contracts are now owned by Russian oil interests, they will be given to American oil interests by whatever government we install. Great so we'll decimate the Iraqi people while the rich fight a war on the backs of the poor.

Let's look at the reason's to invade Iraq. Reason 1: He has weapons of mass destruction. So does the US we have more nuclear missles then any other countrie. Reason 2: He gases his own citizens. Well were do you think the US tests it's chemicals. If you guessed on innocent civilians and military personal then your right. The US has been known to test on people in jails (Your probaley thinking their "bad" if there in jail but they shouldn't be human gineapigs), and even in hospitals. But it's okay cause were the US. Reason 3: We should launch a preemptivie strike before they do. That is plain stupid. We should attack them before they attack us. If we attack them = GOOD, they attack us = BAD. So wouldn't them attacking us be a prremptive strike. We have no reaon to attack Iraq other then because Bush wants to.

I can’t help but being amused when I get into my car everyday and see drivers with bumper stickers saying, “we will never forget” in remembrance of the tragedies of September 11th. The sad fact of the matter is that we have already forgotten. In the days following 9/11 the American people sought strength and comfort from President George W. Bush and he delivered. He felt that one of the most important things that had to come out of 9/11 was an obligation to never let our country be attacked again and at the time the country nodded in agreement. Now however the liberals and “doves” are rebelling against those very obligations. It sickens to see the amount of anti-War demonstrations taking place in this country and around the world. They claim that war with Iraq is unnecessary and will lead to unnecessary slaughter, however what they terribly fail to realize is that on September 10th 2001 very few Americans knew who Osama Bin Laden was. And yet with extremely limited resources and limited power was able to unleash terror of the worst kind unexpectedly. Can you imagine the destruction that could be done by Saddam Hussein a man with a track record of terror, deception, and a man who has gone so far as to slaughter his own people? “Let the U.N. inspectors do their jobs.” is the anti-war jingle. Bad news everyone what do you think was occurring the years Saddam had the inspectors expelled, tiddlywinks and disarming weapons? Come on let’s not be an Ostrich with our head in the sand. No one doubts that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, yet no one wants to admit that his removal is vital to American safety. The threat in Iraq is real and I pray that the “doves” demand for evidence doesn’t come in the form of a weapon of mass destruction in the middle of a peaceful city, lets not forget.

Would this really help on a long term basis? So many countries already see us as bullies who are trying to keep the rest of the planet in line. Invading Iraq might solve some immediate problems, but I'm afraid it might eventually cause bigger ones.

Are you people crazy? I can't believe this topic got this many votes. Hypocrites. You are only stooping yourselves as low as the terrorists. Don't be like them, and DONT invade Iraq. America will be sorry.

Nuke their ass and take the gas!

This particular move would represent a good beginning in trying to clean up the Middle East (Saddam Hussein is as big a terrorist as they come). However, it should be treated as only one in a series of actions designed to bring about a wholesale change in mindset toward the U.S. America is obviously not well-liked in this part of the world, and it would be incumbent on us to offer a better solution to the dictatorial style of Saddam.

Summarily attacking a country that has not attacked you is against international law, and sets a dangerous precedent. All of this talk of "regime changing" in Iraq reminds me of the dark days of US foreign policy when the CIA was set loose around the world to try and topple regimes that were unfriendly to them. This approach was the wrong thing to do then, and it's the wrong thing to do now.

First, let me say that, any gov't that gases their own citizens, or any citizens for that matter, needs to on trial for crimes against humanity. There is no excuse for the individuals of the world to be forced to live under such a brutal dictator as Saddam Hussein. He is a threat to the welfare of all world citizens. Every government on earth needs to be held accountable to the percepts of human rights. This man clearly has crossed the line and needs to stand trial. Now, how to go about that, if he refuses to voluntarily step down, which, of course, is the case, an all volunteer army of 'thug removers' must be activated. This army must be 100% voluntary, which means, that every soldier has the right not to participate at any point. For, if we start forcing people to kill against their will, we become no better than the thugs being removed from power. Also, the army should accomplish their 'thug removal' goals with the least amount of harm to the people in which the thugs operate. This means that apprehension of the thug leaders should be first attempted. If, that is impossible, assassination should be considered. Barring these methods, precision smart bombing could accomplish the goal. Saddam does come out sometimes. If these tactics fail, only then should a completely voluntary force be used. However, the mass killing of soldiers under the criminal government can not be the goal. These soldiers were forced into battle against their will by a criminal gov't and are not the enemy but victims themselves. We must emancipate those soldiers from their tyrant. If, at any time in the military apprehension, any allied soldier refuses to continue, they are to be discharged to go about their way without serious repercussions. Under no circumstances are U.S. soldiers to be used against their will to participate in the removal of criminal gov'ts. These special 'removal' soldiers can also negotiate for higher pay based on duration and risk of operation. The rights of soldiers must be considered of great importance, since, traditionally they have been misused and abused. Remember, it's the criminal gov'ts that are to be on trial, not the simple soldiers. Point of concern, I do not actually believe G. Bush wants to remove Saddam Hussein for the above stated noble reasons, Bush has alterative motives. Bush will not hesitate to use false pretexts to fulfill his nefarious plans. And, unfortunately, Bush is likely to MIS-USE the military for purposes that go beyond the boundaries spelled out in the constitution. Therefore, I highly recommend that all able-bodied persons file a conscientious objector status out immediately.

Time to deal with Saddam before he destabilizes the world.

I am definitely not in favor of invading Iraq. I think that we could only look forward to more terrorism if we did this. I do think, though, that our intelligence needs to keep an extremely watchful eye and ear on Hussein. We certainly cannot let our guard down.

Hussein has been up to no good ever since he came into power. This is not, junior finishing daddy's job. It just so happens that the next President to come along with the guts to take on anybody, happens to be W. For anybody out there that is opposed to drilling for oil in Alaska, we could just slap Iraq around and take it from them. Our military is always ready to take on any country or any combination of countries in the world. Whatever that comment was about Russia attacking us, due to their ties with the Arab nations is a bunch of crap. Unless we attack Russia they aren't going to do anything to the US. If Russia did collectively go insane we would still be able to defeat them and the arab countries as well. All we need is for the other UN nations to get out of our way, they can stay neutral for all I care. There isn't any reason for this to escalate to a world war. Blair might say in public that it's a bad idea, but in private you know he supports the idea. Just like if we decided to attack Cuba(not too bad of a plan either) we would secretly have the whole world's backing. As far as those of you who are afraid of going to war, what exactly is it that scares you about it. If you aren't in the military, you've got nothing to worry about. If you are in the military, you should look forward to the opportunity, to serve your country at the ultimate level. Either way get Saddam out of power and score some oil while we're at it, sounds like the way to go.

wasn't the 9\11 enough? why not, let's invade the rest of the arab countries. not only it'll screw up the US reputation, it'll get them into a war, with a potential of fighting russia as they are supporters of the arab nations.

This will accomplish what, again? This is not a solution, this is something a couple of nuts in this country want to do just as a side project...a worthless side project at that. Invading Iraq and possibly starting a prolonged full-blown war would not do anything but cause more problems. Yea! That's all we need - MORE problems in the Middle East, and we are caught right in the middle of one of them. What a wondeful world this is. No, definitely not the answer to anyone's problems anywhere. In order for something to be successful, it must profit somehiw. Us invading Iraq will not profit. Take care, everyone!

no way this will damage us throughout the whole entire world. all the backing we have from allies is a myth created by the Bush government. only Tony Blair, tony blair w/o the support of the british people, backs us. Invading Iraq would seal America's fate as worldwide tyrants and would inevitably lead to our undoing. remember Hussein is no worse than the US in terms of terrorists efforts and invasion.

I'm with Abuelita on this one. What we need more than anything is a change of topics, a return to moral clarity, and a chance to "win" again. Of course, we should wait until the military is good and ready (another 3-6 months?), and not force the timetable. But ridding Iraq of hussein's tyranny could have positive ripple effects across the entire region.

no matter what is going on in the world, and no matter where - invading Iraq is always a good idea. If I could get Hussein one on one I'd pop his punk ass.