Quote - (ispamforfood @ Jul 25 2008, 00:17)

uh......... wow......... *shakes head* Just so you guys know, what saddam was doing in that country was about a million times worse than anything the US has done to it so far, and ever WILL do to it, i might add. It's like WWII all over again..... everyone knew Hitler was slaughtering the jews, and they all let it happen for several years. maybe he didn't kill millions, but what Hussein did to his own people, to the CHILDREN, of that country.... was warrent enough to take him out.
I don't think anybody disputes that Saddam was an asshat, the problem is that America (and her dozen-or-so buddies) didn't invade Iraq to put an end to an evil dicator, but to stop an illegal nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons program that was an imminent threat to the United States and her allies. All of this without evidence to support their claims, and reports from UN inspectors that no such programs existed. While there were some early attempts to tie an Iraqi invasion to the terrorist attacks of 2001 that angle was minor (and eventually abandonded) in favor of the WMD justification.
Dissenting opinion around the Iraq occupation and invasion has little to with the fact that Saddam wasn't bad, and more to do with the following:
1) False and/or innacurate pretext for invasion
2) An invasion without support popular support (which was not the case with the 1991 invasion).
3) Inconsistency and hypocrisy when dealing with other 'dangerous' world powers (notably North Korea, Iran, China, and Israel)
4) A dissatisfaction by retroactively justifying the invasion (from a "defensive first strive" to "spreading democracy")
In addition to other arguments too numerous to list.
In simple terms: if a person starts a charity to raise money for cancer research, and instead uses that money to cure AIDS; while their motives and the outcome of his or her action may be good - he or she has committed fraud against all of the contributors would serve a time in a federal prison their actions. If something as benign as curing a disease doesn't justify fraud, then the invasion of Iraq doesn't certainly doesn't either. The argument then follows that those responsible for waging war on false pretext should be held accountable for those actions.
The people in the article do not accept the argument that "the ends justify the means".
Quote -
I've heard plenty of arguments as to the whole "WMD" issue..... Consider this.... Given the amount of time between when Hussein threw UN weapons inspectors out of his country and when we invaded (at least a year if not more), would you really EXPECT to find any evidence of WMDs? Hell no....
Weapons inspectors left Iraq March 18,2003, the invasion of that country began on March 19.
Also, your time-frame is artificially short. Not only was no evidence of a chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons program found in the years following the invasion - nor were any found during the decade of UN inspections preceding the invasion. There has never been credible evidence that such a program existed.
Quote -
Saddam probly had the weapons going out the back door when he was playing games with the inspectors (in fact, i've heard that while they may not have found wmds, there was evidence that such weapons did indeed exist before the invasion.... )
Of course they did, they were sold to Iraq by the United States before the nation fell out of favor with the west in the early 90s.
The Iraqi leaders claimed, and proved to the satisfaction of the United Nations security council and weapons inspectors that they had dismantled their weapons programs after the 1991 invasion.
Quote -
Hell, he probably sold them all to foreign parties just so he could attempt to make Bush look like a fool.
No evidence to support such claims has been found either.