I know what you mean about supporting the troops. For the longest time I couldn't figure out why wishing to remove them from harms way wasn't supporting them. However, I came to realize that a lot of troops want to be over there. Hell, some have gone back after finishing their tour of duty. A lot of these guys want to finish the mission and find it rather demoralizing that a lot of Americans don't. If they were already back at home with their families, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to be out, but as long as they're still in harms way, I don't think they want to hear that we don't support what they're fighting for.

Yes, we've established a democratic government, but they don't seem to be capable of defending themselves yet. Of course, that will all happen within a year. That's what I find odd about all of this bickering in Washington. In my opinion, the whole operation is nearing completion anyway and a gradual pullout shouldn't be too far off.

Of course there's no one to surrender, but there are plenty willing to attempt a takeover of a somewhat defenseless government.

This is all just my opinion, naturally, I enjoy a good debate. ^_^

Yes, and I know people over there that think it's a total waste of time (they're all blogging too).

I didn't even bring up the financial burden of all of this. The macroeconomics experts are all shitting their pants because the rest of the world basically own the United States right now so we could finance this thing.

We were lied to about the reasons to go to war by the leader of the free world, and I'm not OK with that. Nor am I OK with the fact that thousands are dead in the process. The U.S. is not a safer place for removing from power someone who wasn't a threat in the first place.

"I didn't even bring up the financial burden of all of this."
Defense is always a large financial burden. I don't disagree that the budget is in desparate need of balancing, but at least they are trying.

"We were lied to about the reasons to go to war by the leader of the free world, and I'm not OK with that."
I'm not alright with a rogue government that had WMDs being left with the capability of redeveloping them in the midst of a region known for terrorism.

"The U.S. is not a safer place for removing from power someone who wasn't a threat in the first place."
Tell that to all the Democrats that claimed he was a threat before the war had started. Besides, where else are we to fight terrorism?

Hold on now... Canada has the capacity to develop WMD's. Should we invade them too? My neighbor could be making fertilizer bombs, but we don't raid his house. Anyone "could" do anything, that's not justification for action. The UN inspectors didn't find anything because there was nothing to find. We still haven't found anything.

The Democrats, no, anyone in Congress, supported the war and agreed Iraq was a threat because that's the intelligence the administration gave them.

And as for "fighting terrorism," come on, you're a smart guy. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until we invaded it. If you're going to fight terrorism, fight the terrorists. Afghanistan made sense, Iraq did not.

Terrorism is fought in the intelligence community, not massive campaigns against nations.

Last I checked Canada isn't a dictatorship and doesn't kill their own people regularly.

The administration gives Congress intelligence? I thought that was the CIA's job!

My point regarding Iraq and terrorism wasn't about a direct tie between Saddam's regime and terrorism, it was about the risk involved with an enemy nation developing WMDs with terrorists right next door. If al Qaeda can't develop them, why not acquire them from someone who can?

Even still, I wouldn't exactly say Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until we invaded it. Islamofascists are running rampant throughout the Middle East looking for a target. The continuing war on terror simply gave them a target. We have to fight these guys somewhere you know.

Terrorism is fought in the intelligence community, but not the intelligence community alone.

The case for war has to be made by the administration, and Congress authorizes it.

You're reaching with more "coulds" and "mights."

Iraq didn't have anything to do with terrorism. Saddam was an evil dick, but he wouldn't allow terrorists making waves in his country and undermine his authority. You say we "have to fight these guys." Well who are "these guys?" You're making the argument that we should be fighting someone just so we're fighting someone.

You can't have a "war" on terrorism anymore than you can have a "war" on drugs.

Iraq != Terrorism. We haven't set an example, the Middle East is in more chaos than ever, and the western world is perceived as imperialist.