And you answered that question, yes, and I suppose I should have acknowledged your answer rather than skipping to the next question. The US gave Saddam further power by giving weapons during their war against Iran to try and tip the scales against communism, despite the fact that the other side of the scale was despotism. The nice chunk of money didn't hurt his stranglehold on Iraq either. We also could be blamed for leaving him in power in Gulf War I, so we further empowered Saddam and then neglected to remove him. Thankfully, most of the US weapons and tanks were gone by the end of the war with Iran and Gulf War I.

The fact that he was anti-Israel, and Israel is of course the US's biggest and most "trusted" ally in the middle east, so that was a big no-no. Particularly because he acted on his ideas and funded suicide bombings.

We've gained nothing from our wars, and when we finally go home I suspect the power groups will go straight back to killing each other again, not that they've stopped doing that while we're there. It's a senseless waste to pour lives and resources down a black hole trying to achieve objectives with no clear bearing on our final goals, whatever they happen to be this week.

We've gained nothing, yet the Iraqi people have something, if only a little piece of what they could have if enough people simply valued the lives of others...
If we pull out now, we will be bit in the ass as we leave and a few years from now, all will be for nothing, and most worrying is the potential for one side to completely annihilate the other in the religious civil war, which would mean a massacre on the scale of hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Lest we forget that there is an islamo-fascist regime right next door attempting to procure nuclear arms. If Iran had its drithers we'd pull out and they could set up a puppet government in Iraq, which is a very dangerous situation indeed.

Dangerous how? I mean apart from having acces to Iraq's resources which will ALSO be sanctioned and therefor less than useful, what harm could come from it?

Unless of course they are after those WMD's hidden in Iraq. :uhoh:

However we cannot be absolutely certain about if the nuclear program is attempting to produce nuclear weapons. It's highly propable but not certain.

There's no guarantee for this kind of scenario. Iran has its hands full with the nuclear program, there would still be strong US presence in the Middle East at Kuwait & Saudi-Arabia, Iraqi armed & security forces would be on par with Iranian ones and Iran would have to handle the issue with the Sunnis & Kurds as well, not to mention that Iran would risk getting attacked by US airforce if it would try occupying Iraq.

Whether there's US presence in Iraq or not, Iran has nevertheless significant effect on the Iraqi administration due to the same religious background and this cannot be changed. Having continuous, active presence of 160 000 US troops in Iraq isn't just unrealistic but also very expensive looking from various point of views. On the other hand leaving 15 000-20 000 men garrison for some years could be possible.

no we should have killed sadaam, his sons, all his followers and ditched the country. we did our job after that. i could give a rats @#$ about the money spent and the oil wasted, but i do care about the loss of life.

You are gravely mistaken when you think having simply left after you killed him and his posse you would have been saving lives..

American lives, sure... but if thats all you care about why go in in the first place?

Am I satisfied. No.

I'd also like to point out something.

Noun: Terrorism ('teru'risum)
The calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

Your point?