The Iraq War was necessary

1. Yes Saddam was a bad guy...that's not the question, the question is, WAS HE A CURRENT THREAT TO THE US...that is the ONLY justification for going to war. And if he was the president has to go through Congress not declare himself king. A true conservative would know this. 2. The evidence before the war was all faulty or ignored, he had no WMD's as many people tried to tell the president and as everyone found out. and even if he did, he would have to be a LOT stupider to use them on us....it would mean the end of his reign, we would have kicked his butt so fast. 3. you ased if these were an iminent threat, i would say no....first of all he didn't have them, second we should have waited for an ATTEMPT to smuggle them in, besides like i said i'd have to be a total moron to use them, yes he was a butcher, but you have to give it to the guy, he wasn't stupid. 4. You mentioned that their hadn't been an attack on US soil, that is wrong...there have been plenty (I believe 2000+ on Allied soil, i'm not sure the number on US) but don't forget the airbort attempt, and the fort in texas (or florida or whereever it was). there have been plenty of attacks none of them succeeded.....just like before 9/11, ussually they fail, every now and then they get lucky, the invasion hasn't changed that, it just made several hundred thousand arabs angry enough to want to attempt it, good going.... 5. "Afghanistan had its first free election in history" This has nothing to do with the Iraq war, the afganistan conflict was perfectly justified... 6. "First time in their history, Iraq and Afghanistan have a chance to control their own destiny" Not a reason to go to war, we hardly have that here. 7. "Iraq now has government that controls its own military, passes its own laws, and exercises all the power provided by their constitution." They don't have a military to speak of, their government is a puppet one set up by the US who is too scared to do anything we don't like, and laws are useless in a civil war. and again, not a reason to go to war. 8. 50 million people have been liberated from Saddam's rule who are now killing each other..... Learn the politics, there are three factions who hate each other.....at least saddam was brutal enough to keep them from doing anything about it, but now that we got rid of their problem all hell is breaking loose. 9. "Saddam Hussein is out of power and dead" I don't miss him, but not a reason to go to war. 10. "Uday and Qusay Hussein, his two terrorist sons who ran the rape rooms and torture chambers, have been killed" see #9 11. "American, British and coalition troops have captured 85% of al Qaeda leaders" The Iraq war didn't have a whole lot to do with this, and Al Qaeda is back to full strength.....way to forget about them Mr. President and distract us with a nice shiny war. 12. "In 2003, Muammar Qaddafi of Libya gave up weapons of mass destruction in response to force used in Iraq" no big deal, the guy's a bully, we so much as look his direction and he caves. that's why the world pretty much ignores him. 13. "Democratically held elections and the seeds of democracy have been planted in Afghanistan and Iraq" Maybe, but democracy is not a great form of government, democracy is mob rule, they ALWAYS end up in a dictatorship, this country succeeds because it's a republic. 14. the last paragraph on your argumant is not backed up by evidence, please show it. Also the majority of Iraq we do not control.... there is a tribal war going on, thousands are dying every day, our troops are getting killed, and for what? In the words of Ronald Reagan, "we don't understand mideast politics". your username is Reaganconservative, i would argue taht it should be BushConservative, Reagan was to smart to invade the mideast, if Bush had been president hewould have nuked Russia.....they had WMD's afterall and could posisbly use them on us......isn't taht your reasoning?