Whether Iraq had anything to do with 911 or not, is irrelevant. However, the fact that they were in violation of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement, is very relevant. Another relevant fact that was weighed in the decision to remove him from power, was the genocide and brutality that he had been guilty of perpetrating against his own people for decades.

As for the WMD, yes, we have found hundreds of WMD in Iraq. Along with the WMD, we also discovered 550 tons of yellow cake uranium. Do you not follow the news? This war was in no way a mistake!! An evil dictator was removed forever from power and later removed from this world completely, making the world that much safer for the peace loving countries of the world.

"It's all over the TV"?? Would that be CNN or MSNBC?

Are you aware of the existence of the the videos below which show first hand the brutality of Saddam Hussein? If not, perhaps you should take a look at them to see who you are defending. We "terrorized" them?? You must be joking!! That piece of shit is sitting in Hell right now right where he belongs and we have George Bush and the American military to thank for that.

Click on each of the four chapters to see Saddam's regime in action. But, make sure you haven't eaten recently.

This is who you are defending and who we "terrorized".
http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/20...

That wasn't THE excuse. That was just one of several reasons to topple him.

Way back in 98, Bill Clinton gave a speech on the steps of the Capitol calling for regime change in Iraq. 911, was just another reason to remove him from power.

I have no idea how many innocent Iraqi children died but I can tell you that they weren't targeted.

We have every right in the world to invade a country when the country in question has violated a Cease Fire Agreement, which they made with us requiring them to disarm and allow weapons inspectors to do their job.

Of course they aren't telling us what to do. We won the Gulf War and they lost. When a country is a LOSER in a war, certain concessions must be made by the LOSER to the victor. That is what ends the war and keeps the victor from going in and occupying the LOSING country. They NEVER for 12 years lived up to the concessions they agreed to with the signing of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement. They violated 17 UN resolutions to disarm and allow weapons inspectors to do their job to see if they were living up to the GWCFA, which they of course were not. If you don't believe what I'm saying because it wasn't been reported on CNN, MSNBC or the BBC, do some of your own research and see what you come up with.

I don't give a flying RIP what the rest of the world thinks. They sure as HELL aren't going to lift a finger to help us so why should we be concerned at all with what those cowards think.

You would do well to quit listening to that left wing garbage that CNN, MSNBC and the BBC spews, They are all anti-military and anti-America.
and as I said, even the high priest of liberalism in the 90's, Bill Clinton himself, called for regime change in Iraq as far back as 1998.

But as always, I do thank you for your opinion.

Iraq is not Al Qaeda's country. Not sure where you got that notion from. They were behind the insurgency and yes, they wanted us out. No question about that.

You people that think oil was the reason we removed an evil dictator from power, I just don't understand. It sounds as if you've been listening to Michael Moore and Bill Mahr far too much. Was oil the reason Bill Clinton called for regime change as well back in 1998. I mean was oil a part of the equation back then as well?? Isn't it possible that oil had nothing to do with the war? Do you have definitive evidence that oil was the reason we went to war? If so, please provide it. I would love to see it. If it were oil, why didn't the price spike immediately upon the invasion? For the most part, the price remained relatively stable for several years after the war began. It didn't really start spiking until earlier this year, which Bush had nothing to do with. Although, he was responsible for it coming down this summer but of course he doesn't get credit for that either from people like you.

I would be shocked if bin Laden is even alive anymore. I don't think we have anything to worry about with him. In fact, the report on Al Qaeda is that it has been decimated in Iraq in the last 12 months, thanks to the surge, which Barack Obama was against. For many of the Iraqi people, they are enjoying for the first time in their lives the benefits of living in a free and democratic society. A society where they now have a voice in their future. Before, they had no voice and no future due to the iron fisted rule of Saddam Hussein. If the reporter who threw his shoes at Bush had thrown his shoes at Saddam, he would have most likely been cut up in to little pieces or at the very least, disappeared to never be heard from again. The irony is that he is angry at Bush, yet it was Bush who has given him the freedom to throw his shoes at Bush without being killed. He will most likely go to prison for a short while but he wont be killed, at least not by the government.

Actually, he was going after the real culprit, which is why we bombed and invaded Afghanistan less than 30 days after 911. So, this comment about him not having "balls to go after the real culprit", is absolutely incorrect. Whereas, The invasion of Iraq did not take place until a year and a half after 911.

The Iraqi people don't want us out, it was the insurgents that wanted us out and the liberal news media that wanted/wants us out. My nephew has story after story of people inviting him into their homes to thank him for the job the Americans are doing in Iraq. They are scared to death that after the Americans leave, things will go back to where they were before under Saddam. They have grown accustomed to being ruled by a corrupt brutal government so they think that is what is in store for them once we're gone. Of course you're not going to see stories like that reported on CNN or MSNBC because it doesn't play into their base.

I don't have to have evidence to prove oil was not the reason. YOU are the one making the claim that oil IS the reason for the war so I'm asking you to either put up or shut up. In a court of law, when someone makes an accusation against another, it is up to the accuser to provide the evidence to prove their case. In other words, the burden of proof is on you. I understand this is not a court of law but rather a court of public opinion but President Bush should be afforded the same rights under our Constitution of any accused citizen.

We did attack those responsible, in Oct of 01!!

It wasn't just not abided by in 1998, it goes back much further than that. It was in 1998 that Clinton finally decided to do something about it. But, they had been in violation of the treaty since it was signed in March of 91.

According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor, dated Nov 06, 2002http://www.csmonitor.com/...
between 1991 and 1995, UN inspectors uncovered a massive program to develop biological and nuclear weapons by Saddam Hussein. They were caught red-handed in 1995 and were forced to admit that they were manufacturing biological toxins. Even after this admission, Saddam still continued to violate the GWCFA. At every opportunity he was given to comply with the GWCFA, he defied it, from day one up until the 2003 invasion. I suspect that the reason Clinton "all of a sudden" got serious about Iraq's failure to comply with the GWCFA, was an attempt on his part to look presidential in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal but that's just speculation on my part. Add to that the fact that he was facing impeachment proceedings and it certainly calls into question his "all of a sudden" response after 7 years of violations by Iraq.