I'm willing to bet that Iraq is going to become a democracy and eventually less violent and remain a friend of the USA. I'm willing to bet that history will say that what Bush did in this war on terrorism will come out good. Let history be the judge and not the politicians looking to get elected by saying what a lot of you want to hear only to have someone else down the road clean up the mess they helped create (Bill Clinton).

That's great.

What does it have to do with what I just said?

I don't know, I was just willing to bet like you were. To respond to your response.........

Willing to bet how a bunch of people would feel is like pissing into the wind. Useless.

Ok well I really do not disagree with what you said, it just did not have anything explicitly to do with my post. That's fine though. History will always be the judge, depending on the historian's point of view, but I do agree that Iraq will be a better place in the future than it was under the Baathists. Although, history also forces me to acknowledge that all of those people lived in peace before Europeans came along, but that is something we can not change.

I have no problem with Bush finishing the job in Iraq. He did not start this war. Saddam did when he invaded Kuwaiit in 1991. That war was never over. There was only a cease fire and UN sanctions. To see why Iraq is crucial in the war on terror, all you have to do is look at a map. Now we have the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world surrounded. That's why you hear them squealing like a stuck pig lately. They know they're cornered and the heat is on them. They know they're next.

Invading a country that posed no threat to the United States or anyone else at the time of invasion will only come back to haunt us in the future.

I'm not sure that lumping Iraq into the War on Terror was Bush's greatest move. In fact, I read a good piece by a conservative saying that while he did not disagree with the invasion, the fact that the administration tried to tie it in with the War on Terror was a bad move. These are not the terrorists we really want to remove. That's al-Qaeda. We took care of Afghanistan very well but that obviously did not mean al-Qaeda was finished. Obviously the biggest issue is that Bush tried to paint the picture of an imminent threat and then no WMDs were found. If Bush was really acting on his 4-D policy for combating terrorism, we would be militarily committed in many nations, most importantly Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Royal Family and many high rank officials in the government have known ties to al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. There are confirmed reports by lower ranking officials that discovered blatant evidence, but did nothing out of fear. This is wrong. More importantly, a lot of the important keys to al-Qaeda's professional multimillion financing operations are in Saudi Arabia, or are some Saudis themselves. This is well documented in U.S. terrorism and counterterrorism literature. There is one snitch and that's the 800 million or whatever barrels of oil that Saudi Arabia pumps out every day, a lot of it going to the U.S. I know you all hate Michael Moore, but what he pointed out about Saudi business interests in the U.S. economy is no joke. Once the run out of oil, they'll be ripe for invasion. Although, I'm not sure if that is good or bad yet.

They were a sponsor of terrorism. You really have to stop repeating everything you hear in Michael Moore movies and get some hard news. Saddam was paying $25000 to every muslim family who let their child blow themselves up to kill Jews. That is not a threat to you?

Saddam used the oil for food program to scam. You claim you hate corruption, yet you ignore this?

It has NOTHING to do with 9/11.

It says right there that these percentages were made from a survey of some 3,300 adults. We have no demographic description, nor do we have age, race, or gender. We really have no idea who those 3,300+ people were. We don't know anything about them. I read in American Government about the different techniques for political polling. None of them paint what could ever be described as an accurate picture. One of the best readings I had in that class was about the sheer ridiculousness and innaccuracy of all political polls. I hate them because they prove nothing but are used by almost everybody to prove points.

This country has 293 million people, probably more. Let's start using our heads and begin to completely ignore polls. The political "polls" that are published or shown on tv day in and day are just as much the work of political bias as they are inaccurate.