I want to put a disclaimer that I am not one of the spread democracy everywhere people. I accept that I live in a good system but I spreading ideologies outside our borders. While I like democracy, I don't think wars or political influencing should be used to spread it. A country should determine its own politics in its own time.

With that out of the way: Iraq. Before the US invaded and toppled Saddam, Iraq wasn't in a horrible shape. Not the strongest military in the world per se but it kept terrorists in the region in line. Then the WMD thing happened and people got gung-ho and we invaded. Now Iraq is far more dangerous than before. Was it with it? Was it worth endangering American lives to make a country more unstable? For the people that believe this, may I ask why? We never found WMDs and even though I can understand a fear of a country getting WMDs, the DPRK has had nukes for a while and never had to use them, and we have one of the biggest nuclear stockpiles in the world, with Russia and China. The ends don't always justify the means. I disagree with people saying they never justify the means since there are some horrible situations that require horrible/hard choices, but in this case, I would say the ends did not justify the means.

Was Saddam a bad person? Everyone is bad, and Saddam just happened to be Middle East ruler 13 that the US decided to fight. I don't say Saddam was a hero or a moral beacon, but he was largely anti-terrorist and the US has had no qualms backing non-democracies in fights. Personally I find the idea of thinking all democracies must be better is stupid, but again thats just me.

While morally he was bad, morals and strategy don't always mix. Strategy and politics shouldn't mix but usually they do.

Overall, it feels like it was a somewhat defensive move by Bush but ended up making Iraq have more terrorists.