Yeah, like the iron heart of George Bush or the humanitarian impulses of Dick Cheney actually give a shit about that, or anyone else who isn't a right wing WASP for that matter. While I I also find it ironic how many of the supporters of this pathetic excuse can talk about liberating the Iraqi people in one sentence and then scream about how ' all ragheads are evil' in the next one. Hussein was a foul tyrant, no question, but actually believing in this bullshit requires an extraordinary amount of cynicism or naivete...

Whats the point he's no longer here.

This was a total disaster on Bush's part!........Sadam may have been a tyrant, but he had the fear of the people. These are people with strong ethic convictions. They will never be able to have any unity without a forced fear. That's where Sadam came in. Now we have a country of lunitic's. Unable to govern even an ant colony. Shame on us for envading and intruding on any country inwhich we don't agree with their internal policies. It's becoming very evident that the Eraq's cannot comprimize. And their willingness to slaughter their own people is barbarick to say the least. Our soldiers are very brave yet naive. As our young men and women are drawn into a dreadful civil war. And Bush has already conceided that he will no longer be responsible for their safe return. When are we going to learn? There was no WMD and there were no terrorist alliance. Sadam was trying to stay under the radar. Bush needed something to do. Bin Laden was too elusive, so he had to get our minds off of him. We haven't forgot about 9/11, nor have we forgot what happened. Let's not forget who got us into this huge mistake and why.

Anyone with 3 brain cells in his or her head would laugh out loud at the idea of 'liberating' people after your armed forces are, in a large part, responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths. . .and since dubs himself admits this, you know the figure is much higher because your lord-of-'tards hasn't told one truth about this botched flag-waving-wet-dream since it started. . .when some of the population is thankful and some of the population is spiteful, you have the receipe for civil war.

Uh,nobody over there ASKED for our "help".This excuse was dreamt up later,after it was proven that there were no WMD,and no links to BinLaden.Since when do you liberate people by blowing them up and torturing them in prison? If we REALLY wanted to help the people,we could have infiltrated THEIR insurgents and aided them in assasinating or capturing Hussein,without losing thousands of our own soldiers,killing and mutilating thousands of civilians,and destroying their infrastructure.

While it sounds noble and all, this "reason" is a smokescreen. Dubya has had the Saddam monkey on his back ever since Daddy Bush didn't "finish the job." That and the opportunity to pay back all the special interest groups that got this pair elected was motivation enough. Just takes a little lying, cheating, and stealing to get it done. :P

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, unfortunately, was not worth the life of one American. Dictators who don't affect our national interest should be contained, perhaps, but not overthrown at tremendous cost.

Liberals always wanted to get rid of Hussein. Conservatives put him in power: the CIA trained him in 1959 to assassinate and kill his way to dictatorship, to get rid of a popular communist leader (fearing domino effect—remember Vietnam). Similarly, in 1921, England and the US (sound familiar) overthrew the Iraq government and installed a --no, not a democracy, a monarchy, we installed a dictatorship--a puppet king, puppet dictator. (And you thought the US was opposed to kings, esp British kings). Why? So the Iraq Oil Co. (a British company) could keep stealing oil from Iraqi people (75% profits went to England, 25% to the Iraqi/British puppet king). So should we have made up for our mistakes of your taxes going to Saddam for 30 years and gotten rid of him? Yes. Is the best way to do that bombing cities which are inhabited by families (killing 30-100k innocents)? No. The solution would have been using our special forces to arrest Saddam. Yes, they could have, or are you belittling our forces? Then we’d have the same result we have now: Saddam on trial, but with 0 innocents and 0 or certainly very few Americans killed. Then we should have use a multinational and largely Arab forces, using plans by our generals (Shinseki) instead of politicians (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz). We would have used no private contractors. We would guarantee 100% oil profits go to Iraqi people directly, instead we have uncompetitive contracts to US companies and all oil prices spiking so that a few US billionaires make a few billion more. We would not have any US military bases (we will have 14, forever in Iraq, paid for by your children, and using our soldiers as pawns and shields for CEO profits). The cost should have been shared, the war over years ago, our troops home after one year. We would not have spent hundreds of billions of your hard earned money plus 10x more borrowed from your childrens' future taken by Bush, given to himself (via Carlyle) and your taxes to Cheney through Halliburton’s no-bid contracts, [and David H. Brooks, of DHB, 160 million salary from your tax dollars, 10 million spent on his daughters' bat mitzvah. Proof private industry is worse than government--his bulletproof vests were cheap, and didn’t work, and he profited while our soldiers died.—but that’s the Republican way] All so private military and oil companies can make billions. Why? Bush and Cheney are the first all oil and military industrial complex presidency (Halliburton and Carlyle group). Republican campaign contributors got the best ROI in the history of investing. The cost in blood of innocent US troops and Iraqi families, not to mention the unending middle east wars our grandchildren will still fight? Priceless.

This is a good reason to go to war in Iraq. Only one problem though. This rationale was only used after Saddam was deposed. If Bush had used this logic to try to sell the war to the public maybe the war would have happened anyway and maybe not, but at least in would have been honest and not simply based on creating sufficient fear amongst U.S. citizens by using unreliable evidence. Furthermore, if this really was the reason to go into Iraq why was it not attempted back in the late 80s? Were not his previous atrocities against his people, namely Kurds in the north, reason enough to depose him? Remember we only went in in 91' because Saddam invaded Kuwait.

It's a fact that Saddam was paying $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber who kills jews and American citizens. It is a bounty well known to all the muslim fanatics who will not stop in killing untill the infidels are dead. It is sad when i hear people talk that Saddam was not a threat to the American people. Saddam is hailed by the muslim fanatics as their savior and leader who will someday destroy the American people because they think he is untouchable when he won against the American after the first gulf war. He has a reputation to to upheld so he doesn't have no choice but to perform or do something to keep his image of invincibility to his loyal fanatics. Meaning he has to do some drastic killings if he didn't get toppled. The above facts will not be digested and ignored by a Bush hater. Once you're a BUsh hater you'll always be a Bush hater. Meaning you're hopeless.

There are some good comments here. I'd just like to say that the US should not of gone to war with Iraq in 1990. The reason why Iraq went into Kuwait was because they were cross drilling into Iraq's oil fields. In other words, stealing billions of dollars worth of oil. This cross drilling business was condemned by the Americans which was why Saddam thought he had the go ahead to invade. Then after the Americans pushed Iraq's forces out, the Americans lit up Kuwaits oil fields. If you think about it, they were actually lighting up Iraq's fields since there was cross drilling going on. Iraq would not have destroyed their own fields. The Americans were the ones who destroyed the fields, not Iraq. Just another lie that was told.

This measure holds some validity, as demonstrated by it being currently ranked number one on this list. But as news hit home yesterday that fourteen more troops from a unit based in my home state were killed by insurgents, it is painfully clear that liberating Iraqis hasnt been worth putting so many of our own troops at risk. However valid the concept, our approach has led to one tragic humiliation after another. Of the fourteen who died yesterday, one went to the same high school as I did (Lance Cpl. Christopher Dyer) and another graduated a few years after me from my same college (Lance Cpl. Michael Cifuentes). There are painful lessons for those who make military decisions to conclude in their memory. I pray for the comfort of the family and friends of the fourteen we just lost, and for happier endings for every troop still at risk.

Last time I checked, this was DONE. So we are still putting our soldiers at risk, why? Oh that's rigt, I forgot AGAIN... Bush says so.

Obviously the best reason. Did we have some self interest at hand? Of course. But every single country in the world acts in self interest, especially the hypocritical european countries (france, i'm talking to you) that would have been thrilled to see sadaam still in charge there so they could collect on the all the money iraq owed them. The truth is that it was very convienient for other countries to cry out in outrage at what we did. They pulled the old liberal trick of looking like compassionate good guys while in reality making things worse for those they claim to help.

Most of you Bush-hating, selfish toads would have opposed our involvement in WW2 as well. Dictators love pacifists like you, who promote their evil actions by opposing the brave men and women who fight to rid us of them. May God bless America with more freedom-loving patriots and compassionate conservatives, and fewer limp-wristed, hate-America-first whiners.

Most convincing reason there is to go to war. but Saddam has not nearly killed the amount of innocent people that american bombings have

Great reason! Its obvious that isnt the reason the US invaded. Our troops are still there arent they? They have a president now, why arent we withdrawing all our troops? If a country uses that reason then they have A LOT more work to do. Start with Darfur and move on over to China.well, then again Darfur doesnt have anything to better a position and China does too much business with great and powerful OZ aka BUSH Inc. If theres no money to be made, whats the use huh?

Not our business

This is the only reason we really needed to go into Iraq. Sure it has not gone perfectly but you have to ask the Iraqi people are you better off now than you were 2 years ago and they would mostly say yes.

Wow, waynethetrainbraindrain. Caution, thoughtful but incendiary rhetoric here. Thanks for sharing your obviously Canadian worldview. Good luck learning farsi.

America gets what it deserves (911) What it deserves now is destruction. Thanks Bush!

This is total horse sh1t! Anyone who believes this needs to get slapped.

What if the current leaders of our country had not helped him gain and control power in Iraq? Mabey we wouldn't have had to fight this war. Mabey the poeple of Iraq would not have suffered for so many years under his rule. Yes he is evil, but are the US leaders that helped him carry out such atrocities and then turn a blind eye to it any less evil. Just think about it.

No compelling reason for attacking a soverign nation whatsoever, they did not attack us. And if those conservative whiteboys who post here feel so sprung about going to war why don't they go to Iraq.

How can Bush liberate those iraqi people when he was partly responsible for maiming and killing their siblings??

I can't believe the U.S. government, the utter masters of spin, floated out this flimsy piece of propaganda. The people of Iraq were not subjugated. You ask a thousand Americans what they think of Dubya and I'd bet you'd get several opinions including words like dictator and madman and murderer yet he is not considered a despot. The key thing is that just because a country governs itself in a fashion that may seem wrong and immoral to the American mind does not mean that it is wrong. As for all of these atrocities he committed etc., so what. Nerve gas? Sure he used it, but so did Iran in their war with Iraq and believe me, so would the Kurds if they'd had it. I served in Afghanistan and people in that part of the world are bred for war and are willing to do what it takes to win

This is only reason for going to war that had any merit at all. Saddam was a Stalinist dictator, but unfortunately the US had little credibility in complaining about it. Saddam Hussein used poison gas on Iranians even before he used it on the Kurds. When he used gas on the Iranians on an almost continuous basis in 1983, Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq as a special envoy to Reagan in order to pave the way to normalizing relations with Saddam. The US continued to publicly criticize Saddams use of chemical weapons (CW), but continued to do business with him. Since the US did not exact any real price for his use of chemical weapons, Saddam kept using them. In March 1988, after Saddam had been using CW on and off for several years, Saddam dropped chemical bombs on Halabja, an Iraqi town in an area held by Iranians at that point in the war. 5,000 Kurds in the town were killed; many seemed to have been killed almost instantly. On August 25th, 1988, Saddam gassed Kurds in villages in Iraqi Kurdistan, five days after a cease-fire went into effect between Iraq and Iran. Nevertheless, Bush Sr., as president in 1989, continued to an effort to bring him [Saddam] into the family of nations. Despite evidence that Saddam was continuing his military build-up, on October 2, 1989, Bush signed a National Security Directive authorizing closer relations with Iraq, giving Saddam more aid. Why on earth did members of Bush Jrs government believe that Iraqis (or at least those who knew the history of US involvement with Saddam) would really see the Americans as being concerned with their freedom and with democracy in Iraq?

I think it was great Saddam was removed. However that was not the reason to enter Iraq. The reasons given have been proven false. I think democracy should be spread but not by an all out declaration of war. The US solution always seems to be at the snap of the fingers. It takes time to push a regime and change a nation. I think the US has lost too much credibility for this quick fix process to work. I just hope post-war Iraq will be administered very delicately and carefully for the sake of the Iraqi people.

Liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein was a worthy goal no doubt. However this was not the primary motive of the Bush administration. We shouldn't fool ourselves on this count: the US invaded Iraq to ensure that the Dollar would be the currency used to trade petroleum. Our goals were not as altruistic as the government or the media make it out to be. Wars are fought for economic purposes. While on the surface it seems like a good investment for America to have dominance in energy markets, the actual reality on the ground does not merit the case. There is a saying in economics: there is no such thing as a free lunch. Middle Easterners increasingly don't see us as a benign influence in the region. Indeed Saddam Hussein was a very unsavory character who brutally supressed all opposition, but we have to realize that we actually supported the man and turned a blind eye to his many atrocities. It was only when we built him up too much that we decided to reign him in. Disposing of Saddam Hussein might have given Americans the satisfaction that we were doing the right thing, but we have to be careful, the best intentions usually end up bringing the worst in people on either side of any conflict. We destabilized a country in a very geopolitically important region of the world. The implications both for the Iraqis and the rest of the world won't be good. The global economy, especially oil and stock markets, are particularly vulnerable to shock. Such a strategy will actually put the United States in a weaker position in the long haul. But that's another topic. Many of the boosters for this war claimed that we would be seen as liberators, that we would be rolling back terrorism. Ironically enough, we are probably encouraging more terrorism and we are destabilizing other nearby countries. They talk about exporting democracy to the rest of the world. Democracy cannot be brought to people by the barrel of a gun, it must be demanded by the people of any given nation. To say otherwise is naive and even a little presumptuous of us. What this shows us is that ultimately we cannot go around searching for monsters to destroy as President John Quincy Adams said nearly 180 years ago. Even the most noblest of goals can end up going horribly bad; what is happening in Iraq is just another example of this.

Indeed a noble goal, but clearly not the main reason the Bush Administration insisted that we invade. Iraq was one of just many nations around the world that lived under tyrannical rule. Humanitarian reasons alone would not have been enough to justify a unilateral military action, and questions would most likely have arised as to why the United States invaded Iraq yet still continues to support and allow brutal regimes elsewhere to stay in power.

We have a right to feel uneasy about liberating Iraq. It's war and we all feel very uneasy about the complications that follow a commitment to go to war. Sadly many Americans now protesting this war were not living during Vietnam when the body counts sometimes totaled thousands per WEEK. I'm just offering a perspective because my perception of this war is shrouded by my experience with Southeast Asia. This war is not about stealing oil for the big oil companies so that they can exploit the hard working people of the world. Thinking like that comes from lain brain professors and young absorbent idealist minds. American oil companies buy their oil at world market prices like France does, like Germany does, and so on. Grow up. There are many countries that have dictators that need to be stopped. North Korea and Cuba have been mentioned. The obvious difference has several facets. The aforementioned countries exist in vacuums and are isolated. They don't train and export terroists and they don't influence our way of life to the extremes like the Middle East. As democracy takes hold and it will, the Middle East and Islam will gain tremendous stature in the world community beyond oil reserves. Turkey is a Middle Eastern Democracy and an Islamic country. Their form of democracy works just fine, their a strong, rich and sovereign nation and with a neighbor like Iraq, the future trading possibilites are tremendous. I've worked in Indonesia, the fifth largest nation in the world. It's a Muslim country with many riches and over the few years I traveled there, I learned to love the people and their religion. But all that's changed. The Middle Eastern terrorist message has arrived on the shores of this beautiful place and it was dictators like Sadam and Bin Laden who supported the spread of this hatred. I would have given this issue five stars, but the fifth I saved for a wish. Peace.

If this is the main reason for going to war with Iraq, I have 2 questions: why Iraq and why now? Was Sadaam's opression of his citizens so much worse than the situation in Saudia Arabia, North Korea, etc? And it's not like Sadaam came out of nowhere...he had been opressing his people for 2 decades without us invading his country. Basically, the humanitarian reason for the Iraq war is the political way of saying we fu!&*d up with our other reasons for going to war. Sorry. But at least they're freee now

Granted, if the U.S. went around liberating every country, it would be a financial and military burden. Yet, it had become clear over the years that most Iraqis were sick and tired of living under the Hussein regime. Also, I cannot see how any human rights activists would ever say no to such an idea (considering the many human rights atrocities Saddam has committed over the years).

My fellow comenters have said it better than I could, but, give me a break! The capacity of some war supporters for self-delusion is breathtaking. Liberating Iraq? More like liberating several thousand immortal souls from their earthly remains. I'm certain that could they speak, we would have their eternal thanks. You all know we would have liberated North Korea instead of Iraq if our SUVs ran on spicy cabbage. And all you sunshine patriots champing at the bit for more wars of liberation, I hope you've already volunteered for military service, and are advocating a huge tax increase. Thought so.

Sadaam was a terrible man that killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people. I have no idea how all the anti-war people can oppose taking this man out. Now all these cowards are criticizing President Bush because there are no WMD's, when first of all Sadaam had them destroyed, and second of all the liberation of a people living in absolute terror is not enough?

George Bush never cared about liberating Iraqis or ANYONE ELSE from an evil dictator. If he did, he could've started with Cuba which is practically across the street. But Cuba doesn't have any oil. So now we see on the news from Iraq how murders, looting, rapes, pornography, liquor sales, gun sales and thefts, etc., etc., are on the rise. The liberation is complete. Sounds a lot like home doesn't it?

Come on now, this had absoluting NOTHING to do with the war, and everyone involved knows it, except for the starry eyed teenaged soldiers who actually have to fight the damned thing. I hate seeing soldiers on tv complaining about how the Iraqi people don't seem to want them there. What are they telling these poor young men and women? Certainly not anything remotely related to the truth. It's a good noble reason for going to war, but there have never been good noble reasons for anything US foreign policy has ever done. And the Civil war was about slavery, I suppose.

I don't care if it costs us a trillion dollars, this a good Christian thing to do. We should liberate all countries.

This is not the mission of America, this is not our job. Such a notion is presumptive, imperialist, unilaterally aggressive, obstrusive and meddlesome. If oppressed people seek liberation, it is their responsibility to see to it: it is not our responsibility to do it for them. What qualifies the Bush Administration to go off half cocked and invade sovereign nations just because its leader is antithetical to the suspect notions of rightwing ideologues? Because it can? That's not good enough for me, and shouldn't be good enough for anyone else. This is do-gooderism at its worst, for who knows what eventual repercussions will result from this kind of ill-advised motivation? This is also nation building, which is something that the rightwingers, curiously enough, condemned Bill Clinton for when his administration sent troops to deal with trouble spots around the globe. Once again, the rightwing droolers maintain a staunch and disingenuous double standard: what was reckless lunacy on the part of Clinton becomes a "noble quest" when undertaken by that moron from Texas. Furthermore, how are the Iraqi people "liberated" by such an action? The few people in this country with brains in their heads foresaw the onerous aftermath of this idiotic waste of our military resources before the start of hostilities, and now, this "noble quest" has turned into a major misadventure. Interesting to note that those who were wary of this war due to the likely uncertain aftermath were called idiots, traitors, cowards, Communists, Saddam-lovers, and God Forbid, "Liberals" by the assisine rightwing drooler douchewads. Seeing that our armed forces trashed Iraq in a big way, causing billions of dollars in infrastructure and real estate damage that will be paid for by a "stick-em up" appropriation of profits from the oil fields, I can't see how this is "liberation." Seeing that the Iraqi people will not have total self-determination in establishing a new government on their own terms, I can't see how this is "liberation." Seeing that there will be an occupying U.S. military presence there for quite sometime, I can't see how this is "liberation." Seeing that the U.S. is insistant on having democracy installed there while it appears the Iraqis want a theocracy, I can't see how U.S. insistance in this regard constitutes "liberation." Seeing that the Iraqi economy was destroyed by U.S. efforts and will need to be rebuilt, and considering that the U.S. plan is for foreign corporations to run the show in post-Saddam Iraq, effectively taking most of the action away from the Iraqi people, I can't see how this is considered "liberation." It comes down to this: the "liberation" nonsense floated by the Bush Administration was just one of the many specious, transparent and ridiculous justifications for this optional war that have proven, in time, to be total nonsense that the idiot constituencies bought lock, stock and barrel. No wonder the rest of the world looks at the U.S. and sees a nation of hicks, morons and hayseeds, because for the most part, that's what it is.

Well, uh hell yes!

You people THIS is why people hate America. We cant go around shoving OUR policys in peoples faces. What right do we have to tell saddam hes wrong and were right? Not to mention we openly helped countries that do 10 times worse than Saddam. Example: China. It kills a kid if u have 2 thats ten times more in a day then saddam could ever do. Not to mention how the Iraqi people didnt want us there. They fought against us!! And they could leave anytime Saddam wasnt forcing them there or asking for them to stay! If their lives were so bad then get out! Its not like America where you have to travel 1,000,000,000,000 miles to get out of here. This is like leaving your state for another state the countries arent that big! We cant go around stopping people we dont like. Saddam was doing fine he even won awards for having a great school system 3 years in a row until we restricted his oil. Him buying those palaces did nothing and Im tired of people saying we need to liberate the people. Thats not our job its violating their sovernty and thats why everyone hates us. And I dont like being hated personally.

Hussein is a murderer. I'm glad he's dead. 50000+ Kurds were murdered by this madman, yet all you anti-war people want to give him a free ride. If you are against his ousting, you are pro-murder. How does leaving Saddam Hussein in power promote peace? Can any of you answer that question? Message me if you can. If you can't, shut your mouth.

The Iraqi people were a people who knew no democracy. Millions of them were killed under the Saddam regime, they lived in small huts while the Hussein punks lived in huge palaces. Saddam tried to convice the world that the Iraqi people hated Americans, when really, they would welcome them with open arms. Imagine a life with only one television station, with no fast food, no department stores, no private internet, no ability for certain conversations to take place and even more. Liberating an oppressed people is always a noble and just cause. Now, let's see what the leaders of North Korea, Libya, Iran, and Cuba do next...

Oh spare me! Our government won't even take care of its own citizens! While it was nice to see Saddam get ousted, this was not the reason the US went to war. In the aftermath the Iraqi people continue to go without basic necessities and dozens of children have been killed picking up undetonated US bombs, not to mention the protests against US occupation that seem to be growing everyday over there. There are plenty of brutal dictators out there, funny how we picked this one, huh? Oh, by the way, where's the weapons of mass destruction?

TO anyone who buys this as a legitimate reason for the war that just took place is living in a fantasy world: snap out of your clean suburban dreamscape already!! Stop buying everything the government feeds your television saturated brain! Start reading some history for once! A) How can we believe the politicians of the most powerful country in the world would give three peanuts about the inhabitants of some opression-stricken foreign country. Since when?!! Since when has any dominant power made it its mission to liberate every human being that is a victim of his/her society in the world... Especially in a foreign country! Can't anyone see that our politicians don't even give a rat's as% about their society's very own victims? All one has to do is take a five minute walk down any lower income neighborhood in any major (or any) city in THIS country to feel the neglect and the lack of compassion that our government has towards some of its very own people. B) Why is our government all of a sudden the liberator of the world? Does anyone know the history of Central America? Did the US government's numerous interventions there bring any liberation about? Why are then people from there still emigrating by the thousands out of their oppressed countries? Why haven't we 'liberated' Cuba, or any of our other Latin America neighbors from their corrupt governments? 3) It is despicable to use the people in Iraq, who SINCE the war started haven't had water to drink, as a lame excuse for a WAR - whatever the real motives are -. It is despicable to use those people as a campaign to brainwash America's tax payers and voters, when some of those very own people were blown up during the bomb raids, or are now desperately trying to survive the chaotic aftermath of the war. C) It is extremely PRESUMPTIOUS to assume that we, the United States, a country that is still an INFANT in the grand skeem of this world (why do we keep on forgetting this simple fact?), could even BEGIN to comprehend the reasons for the conflicts and issues occuring in the Middle East (or anywhere else)- home of the most ancient civilizations, home of the most complex cultures, ideosyncrasies, ideals of this planet - and that we are the suitable judges of those societies and those ruling those countries, and that we would know any better. Only time will tell, but the outcome of this war is not going to be a prosperous land of equality and freedom for all in Iraq. Iraq is likely to continue to have similar issues and conflicts to those it had before. The face of the oppressor will change, but I don't buy for a second that the people there will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the almighty liberator G. Bush. D) Lastly, does anyone in this country ever get jealous of the Iraqis?? I mean, they get all the freakin' attention these days! What about us?!! Why doesn't our government care to liberate us from the pathetic economy we are having to endure? Why doesn't our government care as much as for the Iraqis about the millions jobless, the thousands who are in danger of losing their hard earned homes right here in this country? Why are billions and billions of dollars (which we contributed in the first place), instead of coming back to us in these time of need, going to some strangers in a strange land thousands and thousands of miles away from here? I'm obviously being sarcastic in my frivolous tone towards the Iraqis - my heart does go sincerely out to them (before and now, after the war), just like it goes out to all those people suffering in Kashmir, Pakistan, Colombia, Cuba, Philipines, Israel, Palestine, ... BUT for sure it goes out to the people in this country also, who despite of the fact they still enjoy many more liberties and privileges than many all throughout the world, they are having to struggle now and are not being given their due government support and much deserved aid. My heart goes out to those in THIS country who cannot afford healthcare, to those do not have a decent retirement plan to survive off, to those who do not have a home, to those whose education is being sacrificed for war, to those who have to worry deeply now about their future retirement and healthcare situations. I just hope the government starts to show they care some day too.

All I can say is, that I'm glad old Saddam is not in power in Iraq anymore. This was the best reason, in my opinion, to go to war over there.

"Operation Iraqi Freedom" What more do we need to know? And yes, this was a justified war, even if no WMD are found (which I doubt)

these very abused and oppressed people deserve liberation. it is very sad that they have suffered civilian casualties. hopefully it will not be in vain.

This is the only reason to go to war with Iraq. I am against war, but ousting a leader who brutally tortures and kills his own countrymen and relatives, while also imprisoning children, is a just cause. I am not glad that our country participated in war, and I am not glad that many people lost their lives, but it is one of the greatest things I've seen in my lifetime, that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq.

If I was sure that we were going to liberate them than I would agree with this fully, but I'm not. We have never liberated a non-western country before and I don't think that we will start here. Remember Kuwait, we "liberated" it by reinstalling a brutal monarch, I hope we don't make the same mistake.

This was a good reason to go to war but i dont think that the Bush administration could really care less about the people of Iraq. They tried many different ways to justify the war, couldn't proove anything so they used this reason. This struck a chord with a lot of people but Iraq should have been liberated 13 years ago after the first gulf war. Instead the Iraqi people were betrayed by America and the rising that Bush called for was brutally crushed by Saddam. America were always going to go to war with Iraq, it was in their interest to do so, but they didn't have a morally justifiable reason.

Who could say no to this one? Saddam is a evil man who murdered millions of people; including his own. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have been chearing in the streets for Bush, calling him "the hero of peace". I disgaree with the statement that the US has invaded a soveriegn nation. We have removed a thug from power. Finally, the reign of terror in Iraq has ended, and millions will finally be free.

In my opinion, the only justification that holds any water. Saddam is a bad guy - in many ways, a monster. Not many people would argue that the world would be a better place without Saddam in a position of power. The Bush Administration has subtly shifted its message from finding the infamous WMD's to one of liberation over the last couple of weeks - definitely a marketing shift that makes sense. While it is imaginable that the Americans won't be able to find any damning evidence of WMDs, what is not debatable is that Saddam was an enemy to a lot of people. Whether or not the world at large is comfortable with a wonderful end (the eviction of Saddam) being attained through shaky means (preemptive attack on a sovereign co