Correction, that is not the facts George. Iraq had WMD but it is now believed that they destroyed them in 1991 and 1992 and halted their nuclear weapons development after 1991. They did indeed have them, and they were indeed seen by the inspectors at that time. The question was always whether or not Iraq still had them, destroyed them, or moved them because Iraq continuously thrawted inspectors attempts to verify. The first nuclear arms inspection in Iraq was 15-21 May, 1991. the first chemical weapons inspection in Iraq was 9-15 Jun 1991.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm

>Second, prior to the ivasion, our terms were for him to give up or destroy the WMD or leave the country. Since he didn't have the WMD in the first place, how could he destroy them.
>
>Third, according to official government reports, there never was any consistent or on-going contact between him an Al-Qaida.
>
>Fourth, he presented no danger to our security.
>
>If we hadn't invaded, then factually, terrorism worldwide, especially in Iraq, wouldn't have increased in the proportions it has. Further, our troops wouldn't be in harms way in Iraq. We'd be concentrating on taking down Al-Qaida.
>
>Further, official governement reports indicated that he was trying to broker a deal between Iraq and the US.
>
>To say that if we didn't invade now, our children would have to is nonsense.
>
>>I think most of us will be happy when our election is over and no matter who wins, at least we can hopefully quit hearing about it.
>>
>>
>>Semper Fi
>
>I've already voted and you should be able to tell by this text who I voted for.
>>
>>GySgt Kelly