Some good points, although I think you are erroneously combining the idea of "terrorist" and "insurgent" or "combatant."

I assume by the idea of "breeding terrorists" anti-war types are talking about people who would pose a threat to America or other nations besides Iraq. I have seen no evidence that al Qaeda and similar groups are any larger than they were before 9/11, and there have been zero attacks in the U.S. and Britain.

On the other hand, if we are talking about the invasion increasing violence in Iraq, like insurgent attacks on the coalition, or attacks on Iraqis which do not want the return of tyranny, that kind of goes without saying. Very few Americans were being killed by Japanese and Germans before WWII. Oddly, when the war started and we moved onto the battlefields, such attacks increased greatly. Who knew?

Nobody has explained to me why radical Islamists, the source of most terrorism, would be any less pissed at us if we had never touched Iraq, but "only" invaded Afghanistan, killed hundreds of al Qaeda, and thrown out the Taliban.

Also, nobody has explained to me why the average Iraqi should be any more motivated by the accidental killing of a loved one due to coalition actions than they would be by the deliberate torture or murder of a loved one by Saddam's regime, currently represented by the insurgency. Not only is the insurgency STILL deliberately murdering civilians, but deaths at the hands of Saddam outnumber coalition fatalities by one or two orders of magnitude. I don't think time has mellowed this much.