"May the Wrath of God of true Islam, pure Christianity and Jews be on You soon. May you suffer the way you have made hundred of thousand of people suffer... and may you loose your loved ones the way you have killed them unarmed and innocently..Amen."

What a lovely person. I wont even bother having a debate with you.

My friend wrote something about this...uh...here!

There is no doubt in my mind that the Iraqi War was not a good decision, but a great one. While the reasons for entering into this bloody conflict may have been poorly expressed, or possibly even distorted, by our government they do exist in multitude. The ends may not always justify the means, and I wish wholeheartedly that the means need not be justified, but in this case they do.

It is not difficult to criticize George Bush for actions leading up to the Iraqi War. He saw a shortcut to political prosperity and achieving a goal: fear. He used the abundant evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, WMD's, to convince the American people that a war with Iraq was necessary. While most people will now point out that these claims were falsified because we found no WMD's, the evidence did exist. If you can recall, there was little of no opposition to the claims the Saddam was developing WMD's when they were first brought up. Even countries like Germany and France, who strongly disagreed with our reaction to this evidence, did not dare refute the legitimacy of the evidence. With the pervasiveness of fear after 9/11 this was reason enough for most Americans to go to war, so Bush felt it was the only reason he needed to communicate to the American people. In hindsight, as always 20/20, he should have furthered rationalized his decision.

This being said, I will now attempt to convince the roughly two-thirds of our country's population that oppose the Iraqi war that it is a war of necessity. I will dwell on only three reasons, each of which would be justify the war on terror alone.

The first, and most obvious, benefit of the war has been the downfall of Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial regime. I find it somewhat humorous that human rights activists can criticize the US government so for “torturing” its prisoners of war, while vehemently opposing a war that has ended the tyrannical rule of one of the worst human rights violators the world has ever seen, a man who idolized Hitler. Hussein went so far as to test chemical weapons on his own people, a genocidal decision to ethnically cleanse Iraq of the Kurds. He and his sons would regularly torture any dissidents of the regime, or even loyal subjects who failed to meet their standards, i.e. poorly performing athletes. Including the deaths from such things as famine that resulted from Saddam's poor management of the country and economic assets, it is in no way a stretch to say the the death count from Saddam's regime would have far exceeded the death count of the Iraqi war. Despite this argument validity, it is dwarfed by the war's effect on national security.

For those who doubt the war's indispensable role in national security, I would like to ask you how many terrorist attacks have occurred on American soil since 9/11? The answer, as every American is very well aware, is zero. Could this be blind luck, chance has protected us from a large group of people whose sole goal is to cause us harm? The war on terror keeps the terrorists fighting our soldiers, not our civilians. I ask you, who stands a better chance, an unwitting, untrained civilian, or an intensely trained, well-equipped soldier. But, its not just American lives that are saved by moving the war to foreign soil, it's a stability and sense of securing that is being maintained.

Without impeccable national security, our nation can not function as perfectly as it does. For one, our economy plummets. This in turn leaves less money to invest in the research of such life saving pursuits as a cure for cancer, which results in more people dying. It also creates a decreases the amount of money the government can spend on it's military, thus damaging national security further, creating a vicious cycle. Weak national security also puts the weight of fear on every Americans' shoulders. A burdensome load that no one deserves to have tormenting them.

The final reason for the Iraqi war, the most lofty reason, is its attempt at approaching world peace. The single greatest threat to peace in the modern world is the chaotic situation that plagues the middle east. The only reasonable method of stabilizing the middle east that I have ever heard is by planting the seed of capitalism in the middle of the turmoil and hoping that it will take root and carry democracy with it. By facilitating Iraq's conversion to a capitalistic democracy, we have planted this seed. History has shown us that establishing capitalism is effective in transforming a country in shambles into a stable, economic powerhouse. Post World War II Germany and Japan demonstrate the effect that capitalism has on a disorderly country.

Again, the Iraqi war is a war of necessity: ending a pattern of human rights atrocities, protecting America in the present, providing a glimmer of hope for the future.

The "war on terror" led to the creation of many laws in Australia that I don't believe in. Fear can be applied internally as-well.

Skip, his "countrymen" won't stop fighting amongst themselves. They aren't really countrymen. They are only part of the same country because they British drew an arbitrary line in the sand and the U.S. redrew it when they helped Hussain establish himself as the nation's leader. There are really three nations within Iraq, and if we ever plan to leave we'll have to trisect the nation based on political affiliations rather than geographical ones (as the British did).

Really, Iraq isn't and never really was one single nation. It doesn't matter if it was only recognized as one nation, the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites are simply too different in their ways of thinking to simply act as one. We can't get Americans to agree to do that, even, so don't expect others to either. And, also, don't tell anyone "if you didn't fight back, no one would have died." Not only is it untrue n the most basic sense, but it undermines the ideals fo our own nation. We built our country by fighting off people that we saw as oppressors because we didn't want to be used by them, and many Iraqis see us the same way. Barring that, though, you still sound like a jerk since the opposite opinion is equally correct: no one would have died if we didn't invade.

Really, trully, you're an asshole if you didn't consider that fact.

@ChiChiriMuyo That was one of the best things I ever read. You worded everything in the right order, and made everything clear. I really hope that letmefree reads what you said.

@ FaRmLaNd )

Yea the "war on terror" fear campaign is the biggest bullshit of the early 21st century ... by bombing 1 terrorist you kill many innocent people and create 10 new terrorists.

The only way to fight terrorism is to befriend and help people of those regions.

Touchy subject. However, I'd like to argue against the point above. It's not 40% of the population. It's what the mass media force fed to the people.

People are just too busy with what they are busy with to bother dig deep enough to understand what's going on in the world. Headlines are what most people take in instead of reading and following up on the details.

OpenGovernment and OpenNews would probably be possible with the invention of teh intarweb. Transparency will stop all the corruption, most if not all. 

Regardless an ill informed opinion is still an opinion. Let it be heard then debate it :P

"It is not difficult to criticize George Bush for actions leading up to the Iraqi War. He saw a shortcut to political prosperity and achieving a goal: fear. "

I'd have difficulty criticizing that only because I, too, want to be able to control millions of people. But if you have some higher ideals *laugh* and think that people shouldn't be herded like sheep (I could only dream...), then it might be difficult. But really, anyone who has considered in earnest what it'd be like to be on top realized that they may have to use the same tactics. Hopefully, though, they'd actually consider the results of their actions... It's one thing to use viable tactics, it's another to use them to ruin the plan itself.

I think that's a bit harsh on americans. The leadership is to blame. Of course you're right that america (and the uk) have no place in any countries but their own. I don't think either of our country's should be involved in anything other than self defense.