Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist group in the world, and there were terrorist training camps found in Iraq.  I do not care who the terrorists were that were there.  You can deny facts if you want.  To say that Saddam was just a peace loving non terrorist supporting regime until the US came in is just laughable.  Besides, saving the people of Iraq from Saddam was a good enough reason to go in there, and you would be hard pressed to find a majority of Iraqi's that feel different.  I agree that things could have been done differently, but so could a lot of things that have been done by many leaders.  It is very easy to sit back after the thing is done and criticize the one who did it with no pressure on you to handle something that big in scale.  There were things done wrong and there were things done right to.  The violence over there has gone way down after the surge, so saying the condition is just so horrible now is just foolish.  What do you think it was like when Saddam was in power?

They knew it was impossible before they did it. Here is an interview from 1994.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHrH42kPEAs

We were told that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That was our reason to invade another country. And of course, the real reason was for revenge on 9/11. (Note: Nobody wants to invade North Korea or any other place with known weapons of mass destruction, ie nuclear weapons.)

After doing our search and finding no mass destruction weapons, we should have declared victory and pulled out. Would it leave chaos in our wake? Yes, of course it would have. Is there going to be chaos when we pull out now? Just as much. I don't think that there will be that much freedom that long in Iraq after we leave.

As far as 'freeing people enslaved' or being killed, there are a number of African countries that fall under that category, but as long as they don't blow up our buildings, then that is allowed to continue.

"Considering the huge number of people who died because of their gross negligence and bad judgment, I'm wondering if people feel responsible people within the Bush administration should be personally held accountable for their actions."

Would be a good idea. If they had made a couple of things differently (More troops in the beginning, troops staying in place instead of removing rebells from one city after another and above all if they hadn't disbanded the iraqi army) things would have been A LOT better.

I was for the invasion, not because of terrorists or WMD but because the Hussein family was a bunch of genocides and murderous perverts who deserved to die. (Perhaps its personal but I would rather die in a bomb than in the torture room of the iraqi government because Saddam's son did like my wife or because I played bad in a football game) But after a really successful invasion the post-war handling was outrageous.

Things seem to be heading in the right direction finally and it would be irresponsible to leave now as some democrats are saying, because it would doom the Iraqi people but yes too few heads have been rolling over the post-war handling of affairs.

"there are a number of African countries that fall under that category, but as long as they don't blow up our buildings, then that is allowed to continue."

And this is just not true. The UK government ended a terrible war in Sierra Leone, by sending in troops. After a few weeks drugged up child soldiers who killed thousands (incl. pregnant women etc.) were removed. Nobody talks about that because it worked.
The US government ended a similarly pervert war in Liberia. It worked nobody talks about that.
The French government has troops in Cote d'Ivoire, most likely the only thing that has kept things (prosperous) country from falling into civil war. There are problems but no carnage.
The US government and others strongly lean on the Sudanese government which resulted in a peace accord with the south after a decade of battle. Now there are problems in Darfur but without outsiders it would be even worse.

None of these countries has or exports(Sudan) much oil into the west. So these are purely humanitarian efforts. This isn't done for every conflict but the cynical approach that people suffering never results in intervention is simply wrong.

No the Iraqi government didn't have WMD (although every western Intelligence Agency and by some accounts even some parts of the iraqi govermnent thought it had).
No Saddam didn't harbour Al Qaida they were his enemy also.

But the Hussein's were some of the most perverted rulers of any nation. A family member of a quarter of all families had seen a torture cell from the inside. It is true that now as many people die because of terror than before because of the Hussein's but this isn't inevitable and should be handled. Iraq has great potential and its oil reserves give it a chance for great prosperity. The invasion gave them a chance. We will see if it comes through.

 I agree in that we are selective in what we do.  I think that if we approached this situation this way, then we should approach the others the same.  Just because we do not, does not make this situation wrong.  I hate the selective treatment that we give, but I support the help none the less.  The problem I see is that we are unwilling to use the might that we have. I also understand that it is easy to sit back on the outside and think that I know what ought to be done.  We really have no idea what all goes on and how tough some of these decisions must be for someone to have to make.  I just wish there was more respect given people who are forced to make tough decisions, instead of the constant trashing that they get.

I know there are different terrorist groups as well, but some unknown group where both you and I don't even know if they pose any threat to the US won't be a reason to invade Iraq. And are you implying I said Saddam was just a peace loving non terrorist supporting regime? Please show me where I said those words.

I agree that getting rid of Saddam in itself was a positive thing, problem is that it wasn't the reason the US invaded the country, nor did they plan how to govern Iraq after conquering it. That itself is such a huge misstep, and such an obvious one, that the people responsible should be held accountable for it. They freed Iraq from a dictator, but instead of helping the country forward they just put it in another, possibly even bigger, mess. Of course it is always easier to judge about a situation afterwards, but are you seriously saying they couldn't have known they had to govern the country after occupying it?

About the surge, I'm not sure it really made the country safer. Maybe less US soldiers are getting killed, but I don't know how many Iraqis are getting killed now and before the surge.

I did not mean to imply that you said that, sorry for that. Saddam was a maniac and getting rid of him was one of the reasons for going in there. We did not prepare to govern them because we wanted them to govern themselves. This is going to take time and thinking that it should all be fixed this quickly is unfair. That is just not possible nor did I ever get the impression that was going to happen. Still I ask, do you have any idea what it must be like to have to make these decisions? Think about that a little before making judgments on how stupid or messed up it was. You and I have no idea the pressure the president has to face everyday no matter who it is. I do not like everything Bush has done, nor did I like everything Clinton did either, but I have respect for the office and there just seems to be such a disrespect given to that office today. Not saying that you are one doing it, but a lot of people in these type threads do. Good discussion anyway.

I love how people keep saying "There were no WMDs! There were no terrorists!" yet this was after the media was constantly pounding out over the TV exactly what the plans for the US were for going there. It's like, if you have a army that specializes in guerrilla tactics, and you march in SHOUTING AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS THAT YOUR GONNA GET THEM, do you really think they're gonna just stick around?

And oil, I mean, good god, what the hell is wrong with you people? Can you actually show me where the announcement is that any American company now has control of Iraq oil? If this was actually about oil, you would have seen the media blasting out and naming which "evil corporations" have "exploited" the poor, war blighted country, yet all you hear is this nameless clamor over how bush is "after" Iraq's oil. Wake up, people! It's been 7 years! If he was AFTER the oil he would have HAD it by now, he wouldn't still be AFTER it.

The american media itself is the reason that the war has lasted so long, because they're the ones that keep spouting out negative articles that are often either blown out of proportion, or unconfirmed rumors that should never have been allowed on the air. You can argue about freedom of speech all you want, but there are LIVES on the line, not just our own, but Iraqi lives as well.
There IS a psychological front to warfare, and the media has only been fighting against America on that respect and aiding the terrorists. If the media hadn't been constantly putting out more fodder for the terrorists to incite stupid recruits with, they probably already would have dwindled to dust. As it is, the war has constantly been dragged out, and has only cost more lives on both sides.

Okay, that's the end of my rant.

Well, that's quite a coincidence, I just saw the documentary in school yesterday.