We removed an evil and dangerous man with unlimited resources who the world believed was trying to acquire WMDs. The same man who plundered his country's resources, sponsored terrorism, and would probably do whatever he could to help anyone who wanted to attack the U.S. Although we obviously never found WMDs, I suspect he moved whatever he had out of the country. There is also no legitimate reason to have a billion dollars under your mattress (we found somewhere close to this amount in one of his palaces).
We sent to a strong message to the rest of the world that you don't mess with the U.S. Makes talks with countries like Iran much easier, because they know we're not shy about a dropping a bomb or two.
There have been no terrorist attacks since we invaded.
Dude,
We put him in power.
China is just actually worse! Would you like to invade them next?
There is a perfectly legitimate reason to have a billion dollars under your mattress considering the US's influence on global banking. I bet checking under Haliburton's mattress would yield similar results. There are other nations in the region with WMDs. BTW, you really might want to check and see where the WMD's he used on the Kurds came from, LOL!
The world already knew the message. Occupying Iraq destabilized the region and created more enemies.
No terrorist attack since the invasion is a silly reason. How many attacks did we have before the occupation? They are no more connected to those bombs than US taxpayers are to the Tomahawk missiles the Navy drops on Iraq. There is no causal relationship between Iraq and 911. Bin Laden is a wahabbi from Saudi Arabia. Most of the Hijackers were Saudis... if there's any country in need of an asswhoopin.... you get my point.
911 sucked, I get that. What no one has been able to satisfactorily explain is how destroying an uninvolved country is supposed to make us all feel better. I wouldn't even have had a problem with using bombs to keep Afghanistan in the stone age... forever. Literally leaving no stone unturned and sending no aid would send the message that harboring terrorists was too expensive on a cultural level.
Like I wrote earlier, it's understandable why someone would want to believe attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. There just doesn't seem to be a verifiable, logical reason to support the argument.
I'd say we're less safe for having invaded them. One thing people can't live with for too long without taking action is fear. Fear is why we're giving up constitutional rights and allowing the government free reign. They fear us... how far would they have to go in order to feel safe? Sadly, those countries need nuclear weapons more than ever for nothing more than to delay or prevent a US attack. Just because the US will not attack a nuclear superpower. Especially one that close to Israel. It would be insane for them to not do everything possible for their country's protection. That kind of leverage is the only thing that would make the US negotiate and prevent their 'neighbors' from indiscriminately attacking.
