Forget the false, advertised pretenses for going to war. (WMD, Regime Change) They were necessary to gather support because most wouldn't understand the true threat.

Forget the ineptitude, cronyism, and corruption of the Bush administration. They have likely undermined the entire effort due to the pure politics of Rove.

The real threat is the challenge to our way of life, if the radical Islamists had their way. We cannot appease them.

The argument that we created more radical Islamists by being in Iraq is false. Maybe we created them faster than otherwise, but they certainly had animosity towards the West to begin with. US in Iraq has given them the chance to decide their own fate: accept Western hegemony or fight against it.

Radical Islamists where under control under Saddam. BUT they are now free to act under the current bogus govt running Iraq now. For example, Sadr is a major asshole but he has MORE power NOW than he EVER had under Saddam.

We agree on one goal here; Radical Islamists need to be controled and contained. If this means support for dictators than so be it.

For whatever reasons Radical Islamist tend to win free elections (see Hamas). So it is clear that free elections in this part of the world (at this time at least) are not in our best interest.

"We agree on one goal here; Radical Islamists need to be controled and contained. If this means support for dictators than so be it."

Perhaps the terrorists/insurgents are far worse now than before, and likely far worse than saddam was himself. but how anyone could reason for support of saddam is beyond me. did we find wmds? no. did we find mass graves that were filled with victims of saddam's facsism? we did indeed.

the fact is, any one like saddam (as well as those who are clearly worse) should be removed from power one way or another and the entire world should fight to keep anyone like them out of power.

and let's be honest, the unfortunate collateral damage that's occured is still a lot lower than those who were killed under saddam's regime. further, collateral damage is only temporary. upon the installation of a stable, just government, it'll end. whereas under saddam's "stable" rule, one still lived with the threat of death.

of course, after all this is said, i have to conceed that i have no idea whose standards we'd use to determine who should be removed from power, but i still can't help from thinking we shold try and find a consensus.

The argument that we created more radical Islamists by being in Iraq is false. Maybe we created them faster than otherwise, but they certainly had animosity towards the West to begin with.

I disagree with your argument here. To say that 'we did not create more radical Islamists by being in Iraq' and then 'we created them faster than otherwise' is a simple contradiction.

Perhaps many Iraqis were ambivalent or unfriendly towards the West before the war. That's all right; it isn't necessary to be pals with everyone, being able to live with them is enough. To turn people from unfriendly to hostile radicals is a step in the wrong direction.

Moreover, I must apologize, QED. I'm not going to forget the lies with which America was led into an unnecessary war, nor the rank stupidity and corruption rampant in the post-war operation. The threat to us was not posed by Iraq; therefore, lying to gather support to go to war there was unnecessary. The threat that exists in Iraq now is there because we put it there. Your own statements admit that we are turning people into terrorists who would otherwise not be. The administration and the GOP should, and hopefully will continue to be, held responsible.

So Saddam had Iran under control? What planet did you say you were from? Certainly not earth.

Elections are not in our interest? Saddam was always elected by a landslide. But there might have been a coercision factor there. Same for Hamas and Iran as well.

So you want the USA to remove any and ALL regimes 'like saddam (as well as those who are clearly worse')!

Well that says it all, doesn't it! You want the USA to be the world's policeman! You are also calling for the USA to be at war 24 \ 7 (either at war 'taking out' these evil regimes OR after we take them out dealing with the mess we leave e.g. Iraq).

Sorry I just cannot agree with that point of view. It is up to the people of a nation to 'take out' their own boggymen. PLEASE go back and read what you posted. While it MIGHT sound nice (being the 'good guy' and all), it is an INSANE foreign policy. Really insane!

UNLESS it is in the BEST interest of the USA the USA should STAY out. Again, to me Saddam in power was better for the USA than the existing situation we have now.

Where did I say Saddam had IRAN under control. LEARN TO READ. I said Saddam had SADR under control.

Did you even know who Sadr was when Saddam was running Iraq? I didn't. Why, because Sadr was a NOTHING since Saddam had the Shittie majority UNDER CONTROL.

I'm sure you know that IRAN is a Shittie nation. Saddam was Sunnie. So under Saddam Iran had LESS power than they have with Iraq under Shittie leadership.

COME ON, you have to see this. Really, how can that fact be questioned?

With regards to elections I guess it is always easy to say that when the 'other side' wins the election wasn't fair. Hey, Dems pulled this crap in 2000 and 2004 (PS: GWB is a total asshole, fairure and moron, but he did win in 2000 and 2004).