TVs_Frank: I'm gonna blame the guy that deserves ALL of the blame for this mess:

Britain

movieman523: "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them."

Emob78: Sure. Haliburton, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Bechtel, GE, BP, Exxon, Blackwater, it's actually a pretty long list.

Perhaps I phrased my answer wrong. What I meant was the stability that was created by western governments in order to facilitate a period of no bid contracts and manipulated peace via the American and British controlled Iraqi puppet government. Stability is certainly a subjective term, no more so in regards to mid-east policy. One man's stability is another man's anarchy.

real.geizterfahr: Well. Look at it the other way around... Just imagine I'm a military force, completely outclassing the American forces and I'm invading the USA. Yes, they might shoot down one or two of my helicopters, but I have a few hundred helicopters more sitting there. They can't beat me. They kill one of my soldiers? I'll send a drone and kill the Top 10 of their leaders. Why? Because I think the President and his staff are bad people. They're holding up a system where a hand full of super rich people makes more and more money out of the very poor population. This is evil and this evil has to be purged.

After a couple of years I've succeeded. The White House isn't anymore. It's the Red House now. Some random communist is ruling the land now. Everyone is equal, no poor, no rich. The only thing the USA had to sacrifice, was Freedom of Speech and other things that could endanger my system. That's sad, but necessary to make everyone happy - my happy, not your former, false happy. However... Since I've succeeded and the USA is now a happy land of comrades, I call my superior military troops back home.

Now... What do you think will happen? Won't Americans take back their country from that ridiculous communist that someone else put in the White House?

Yes, Saddam was a bitch. I don't think it was the USA's business to remove him, but that's another story. But what happened afterwards... You can't force a country to become democratic and to elect the right people. It's desirable that they do so, but you can't force them. But that's exactly what happened there. They (US and allies) fought a war against everything that was wrong in the eyes of the western countries. But Iraq isn't a western country. It was to expect that things go haywire as soon as the military forces leave.

Elmofongo: Thats a question I like to ask, since the whole of America's war in Iraq was just for the oil, shouldn't the oil industry in America be booming? Like Gas prices are cheaper thanks to the abundance of Middle Eastern oil?

Strijkbout: My theory would be that it was never the objective to get Iraqi oil, as they would never get away with that, it was to destabilize the region so middle easten oilprices would rise so that drilling America's own oilreserves would be profitable.

chean: It was actually after World War 1, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, which had conquered and then ruled the area (as artificial provinces) for most of the previous few centuries.

*exits pedant mode*

Elmofongo: So Iraq is dependent on America's oil thus increasing profit for American oil companies. Sinister...

Strijkbout: Not at all, the USA is now no longer dependent on oil from the middle east which was the goal of the neocons and that could only happen if the oilprices would rise globally so drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska would make a profit which would never have been possible if they had to compete with cheap Arab oil.

Elmofongo: So strangely enough Iraq would have been better off if Saddam Hussien lived and still in power?

Not that Saddam Hussien was a saint, its just that he was the lesser of 2 evils?

babark: The US wasn't fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq at all. Despite everything Bush tried to do to connect them to Iraq, Al Qaeda had basically zero presence there.

Now their affiliates are going around taking over cities. Progress, I suppose? :(

jeffreydean1: Absolutely. Ive been saying that for over a decade and only now are people starting to pay attention to this crap. Was he a good man? No. Of course not. But he had the region stabilized and he was anti AL-Quada. Removing the Saddam regime was one of the best things that could have happened for militant islamists in the region. It was just a matter of time before this happened. The writing was on the wall the moment the we decided to invade and destabilize the region. Why is this surprising to people?

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with going after Al Quada. How people still think this after so long is just mind-numbing. I

jeffreydean1: This. It's terrifying how few people think that Saddam = Al Qaeda. Of course you can blame the Bush administration's obfuscation, but there comes a point where the people themselves are responsible for their own actions and ignorance. 2 seconds on Google could clear that misconception up, but nobody bothers anymore when they're fed talking points and lies.

Elmofongo: I am fairly young (21) and I barely payed attention to Iraq and Afghan war, I was only 9 years old when 9/11 happened.

Elmofongo: Thats a question I like to ask, since the whole of America's war in Iraq was just for the oil, shouldn't the oil industry in America be booming? Like Gas prices are cheaper thanks to the abundance of Middle Eastern oil?
Elmofongo: So strangely enough Iraq would have been better off if Saddam Hussien lived and still in power?

Not that Saddam Hussien was a saint, its just that he was the lesser of 2 evils?