I remember seeing this on the news. And the way I felt because it is a big event.

it is a big event and as long as our troops are there it should stay stay that way. i may have my doubts as to why we went this direction i dont buy the WMD thing but this is the path the usa took and we need to support our troops because those men and women put their lives on the line for everyone us whether we agree or disagree

First off, this is phrased all wrong. Try 'United Coalition of Nations Liberates Iraq.' Regardless of WMD's or not, no one can argue that what the Coalition did was a great thing. Millions of people were freed from the crushing boot of villainy. Rape rooms and torture chambers were no longer used. I remember watching this on television and smiling broadly as citizens defamed Saddam statues and paintings. And, it was absoultely amazing when the main statue in Baghdad was toppled.

Maybe you should refer to it as a 'US led Coalition', because I am sure not mentioning the soldiers from Poland, Austrailia, Denmark, and possibly others, is rather disrespectful. Instead of this changing into a discussion about how legitimate the war was, I'll just say that it was definitely the biggest news event of 2003.

There was no issue that dominated the year more than this. Supporters and detractors alike were engrossed by this event.

I remember when that was on the news and how it made headlines. This was a very big event because it could have been the prelude to a very nasty world war. Thankfully, it didn't turn out to be a big world war (or not yet anyway.)

Whether you agreed with it or not, this was certainly a significant event in 2003.

Certainly the biggest story of 2003 which has completely changed the dynamics of American politics heading into the 2004 Presidential and Congressional elections. I have commented elsewhere on this site on this subject, and here I will attempt to clarify my position once and for all. Saddam Hussein was a madman and a thug who used horrible means of torture to harm the citizens of Iraq. I'd even go as far to say that his being in power posed a significant threat to the surrounding region. However, Saddam Hussein was by no means a threat to world peace or to the United States. The policy of containment and isolation intitiated after the 1991 Gulf War was effective in keeping Saddam in line, and it is my opinion that unilateral force was not necessary nor justified in this situation. Unilateral military action should only be considered and executed if a clear and present danger is presented to U.S. national security, and with Iraq and the Hussein regime, this was just not the case. A Democratic and free Iraq is a worthy cause, but it is not the mission of the United States ALONE to install democracy and freedom around the world- this should be a collective effort by the world's most powerful nations.

come and listen to the story of a despot named hussein. to the bushes and bill clinton he really was a pain taunting u.n. inspectors, telling them to take a hike slaughtering his friends, and enemies alike then one day george, he came up with a plan he gathered round his armies and said let's stop this man sent him into hiding, when the bombers reached their goal dragged him filthy and unshaven from his ratty spider hole

Sing the comment on this from jgls to the tune of the Beverly Hillbillies. It's good stuff, lol.

Going against international opinion and the United Nations, the U. S. and Britain's invasion of Iraq is a big threat to World Peace. Saddam would not have been stupid enough to attack America and get attacked himself. By the way, did you know that the United States sold chemical and biological weapons to Iraq some years ago?