Today...

[Pink Underoo]

We had a reason to go to Afghanistan, retalian was necessary - but the real reason we went in was to get a foot in the middle eastern door, obviously. Now look at the rest of the region. You have Iraq and Iran, Two nations with equally insane, nut job leaders - one of which has NO evidence of any successful start to a nuclear program, one has documented plans, contacts and materials to actually build the bomb. wouldn't it make sense to go for the latter? But wait, there's more! Look at the three countries mentioned, Afghanistan and Iraq are two countries with relatively no national army, where Iran would involve a full scale conflict. Now, Bush doesn't want to start a full scale war, too risky, too unpopular. So what do you do? You try to pressure Iran (the only actual threat in the region) into backing down. How, you ask? You have American support to enter and invade Afghanistan (see 9/11), and what country lies on the other side of Iran... oh my god, Iraq!

A country with a nut job, genocidal leader - largely unpopular with the American people. That enough doesn't warrant an invasion, so what happens! Our intelligence agencies, along with the White House create a reason for invasion (See WMD LIES, oh yea UN inspectors also told us they didn't have any means or methods to creating a nuclear weapon - i would supply a link but CNN, AD, Google, Yahoo, almost all websites i frequent aren't working on my current connection. You can verify that with Aero or Bojack). Anyways, so now we invade Iraq and have two footholds in the Middle East, coincidentally on either side of Iran - who in turn becomes momentarily hostile, only to then back down.

Coincidence? I think not. Lying to the public and embarking on unjust wars? I think so. Also, if we wanted to oust every fucking insane leader in the world, you think we'd go to Venezuala, Russia, China, North Korea and every fucking country in Africa too. But we didn't, so if your going to justify us going to Iraq SOLELY on the mission to remove a nut job, your ignorant. I tried to make a nuclear bomb in my basement, and failed miserably - fifteen years ago - should we launch an airstrike on Boston? He tried, and failed miserably fifteen years ago. HE DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE. and UN Inspectors this time around actually DID inspect Iraq's facilities, and guess what? nothing. And, in my opinion, Suddam should have been upset about inspectors coming - we had no just cause, no reason to think he was trying again. That's like bringing the FBI to your house on my word alone, and no evidence whatsoever. Maybe some fabricated evidence, at best.

Cleaning up the mess? Iraq economy, down. Murders and violence in iraq, up. living conditions, down (dead corpses and animals lying in the street half blown up are on the rise). Suddam's security force might have been oppressive, but it limited sectarian violence, it limited terrorism - it did the job. the Iraqi police are a complete joke. An Iraqi commander even SWITCHED TO THE OTHER SIDE WITH HIS TROOPS in Sadr City. Yes, Mission Success George W.

I'm not defending Suddam, he obviously should have been ousted - but the manner and methods we took, and how it's gone so far is, and has been, entirely illegal and a complete failure.

Iran couldn't do much more than Iraq: it's airforce, artillery, ground forces and weapons technology are vastly inferior to everything that the US has. If we moved into Iran it would happen pretty much the same way as Iraq: we use bombs and missiles to blow the crap out of them, then our forces move in to sweep up what's left. And while some UN inspectors did get to inspect some facilities in Iraq, they were only allowed to do it when and where Saddam gave permission: is it any wonder that they found nothing? It's because Saddam was refusing to permit inspections in other locations that we threatened to invade Iraq. Or do you seriously think that we invaded Iraq for no reason other than what you've posted here?

This conflict isn't just about revenge for 9/11. The militaristic madmen that rule in the middle east and use the oil revenue to fund their oppressive regimes is what generates the desperate wackos that will fly planes full of civilians into buildings full of more civilians. Like Bra already said, we actually helped put Saddam into power so his regime was partly our fault: to an extent, we're simply taking responsibility for what we've done there. In a larger sense, we're doing it because it simply needs to be done and nobody else is going to do it. Total success isn't going to happen tomorrow: reform takes time. You might be crying that some things are bad in Iraq now, but at least now they can fight for their own freedom, and for their children, and they're not forever subject to one bloodthirsty man's mad ambition. Progress is being made, just a few months ago the "USELESS" Iraqi government and Sadr's Mahdi Army were making progress in unifying the nation. If we leave, that kind of progress would stop and things would regress into the type of situation that would produce another Saddam-style dictator.

We should have toppled Saddam's regime when he invaded Kuwait, because after we kicked his balls in the Iraqi people tried to overthrow him while expecting that the US would help, but we did nothing while Saddam slaughtered many people that otherwise would be helping us right now: and they have not forgotten it. It's the primary reason why so many in Iraq have been so slow to join any US-lead reformation, because if we suddenly leave then they're going to have to fend for themselves against enemies on all sides that all hate the USA. The other nations in the region are also intently watching what we're doing there, and our future relationships with them will depend on how we resolve our involvement in Iraq.

Besides all that, you're harping on the invasion which is over and has been for years. Wars are more than just an invasion: we've been in the reconstruction phase for years now.