This is a war on terror and Saddam was sponsoring it and supporting it. Iraq was the next logical step after Afghanistan. Now we have the #1 sponsor of terrorism boxed in the middle. Iraq in different hands than Saddam is good military strategy.

Kuwait was recognized as an ally years after the Gulf War. You said that Iraq attacked one of our allies. Alliances aren't ex post facto.

America is business partners with basically everyone, with a few exceptions. That comes with being an economic superpower.

Sometimes, I feel like America is a heroin junkie, the Middle East is our dealer, and oil... Well, you get the picture.

You're right, I do have a car. However, I would rather have a car that runs on something that doesn't come from a foreign country, or at the very least a foreign country that happens to be in an area where we are widely loathed by the populace.

Every nation goes to war for one reason, it is in their interest to do so. Kuwait was certainly in our interest. Kuwait used to be part of Iraq and broke free. That is why Saddam invaded it. He wanted it back in the fold to control the oil to hurt the USA.

I think his main goal was not to hurt the US, but to have more oil to bring in more profit for himself, and for his cronies. Not EVERYTHING that happens in the world is about America. Just most things.

Wrong. Iraq was the illogical step after Afghanistan. Saddam was terrorizing his own people. Yes, this is very wrong, but he was not killing Americans. There are plenty of regimes that continue to this day to terrorize their own people, that is how they stay in power. By the logic you have used, any number of countries including Iraq would have been the next logical step. However, the U.S. is trying defeat a much different beast. I elaborated on this in another thread, but if Bush was truly trying to kill al-Qaeda in its tracks and that was the number one goal of the United States, we would be occupying Saudi Arabia right now.

Yes. So wouldn't you think it would be in our interest to keep him from doing that? I sure do.

I think Iran is a much more immediate problem that Saudi Arabia. We only care about people torturing their people if it affects us and Iraq certainly did. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are the main sponsors of terrorism aren't they? I mean government sponsored. I know Saudi Arabia funds some terrorism, but are they one of the main ones?

I guess you did not read my post in the other thread because I went over all of this. The Taliban regime harbored Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. After 9/11, we went in with our troops and supported the Northern Alliance and got rid of the regime that was haboring al-Qaeda. Then all of a sudden the focus shifted completely to Saddam in Iraq, which had nothing to do with terrorism against Americans nor did it have to do with 9/11. However, the invasion still fell within Bush's 4-D policy, one of the four D's being to destroy state terrorism and state's that support terrorism. However, as a threat to Americans, Saddam and Iraq are certainly debatable. The threat to Americans from al-Qaeda and Bin Laden is unquestionable. Saudi Arabia is an impossibility because of the financial connections with the Royal Family in the U.S. economy, but more importantly because they pump of a lot more oil everyday than anybody else in the world. al-Qaeda's main source of money is through Saudi Arabia, from donations by sympathizing elites and from Muslim charities in that country. If defeating al-Qaeda is the goal, invading Iraq caused a boatload more problems then it has solved. If defeating terrorist regimes in the Middle East is the goal, why didn't Bush just come out and say it? Why did he bother with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. I think the answer is because the greatest threat is from al-Qaeda, yet the true interests of the administration have come to light from the exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy. It gave the U.S. justification and cause for going into the Middle East with the military machine, yet invading Iraq and the current fixation on Iran only show to me that al-Qaeda is not truly the number one goal. The more counterterrorism literature I read, most of it being written by ex Army Generals, the more I understood the strength of al-Qaeda and the huge challenge to defeat it. However, reading after reading showed to me that if al-Qaeda was the number one challenge right now, the invasion of Iraq and the fixation on Iran would not be around. The most radical hypothetical reaction to 9/11 I read was by Cordevilla, a conservative, who advocated the immediate invasions of Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and a U.S. backed, Israeli led invasion of all PLO territories. Now, this is a little much I think, but he made a strong case for Saudi Arabia and he was certainly not the only person who emphasized the connections between Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda.

I think it would be in the interest of oil companies, but not necissarily in our own interest. We need to be weened.

Saddam was sponsoring terrorism and this is a war against terrorism. What about that statement do you not understand?