That is a tough question.

We found only traces of WMD, evidence of WMD programs and several hundred old WMD shells. We did not find the mass quantities and quality that we expected. And while we did put to stop to the terrorist camps in Northern Iraq, and we found evidence of that al-Qaeda /Iraq had some communications, there is no evidence that Saddam sponsored al-Qaeda.

We did, however, uncover some of the worst human rights violations in the world, and also that the UN failed to protect Iraqis while taking bribes. That needed to be stopped, but was it worth a war to stop it? Perhaps.

Prior to the war, Iraq continue to violate the no fly zone and shoot at out jets. But was that worth going to war over? No.

Iraq has become a flypaper of sorts, attracting terrorist in one area so that our trained professionals can deal with them. Since we are fighting them there, we are not fighting them on the streets of America. That is good for America. However, had we not invaded Iraq, Afghanistan would have probably served the same purpose.

Iraq offers a great strategic point in which to keep an eye on Iran, but Afghanistan probably would be sufficient enough.

So if the question is, 'knowing what we do know now, would we invade Iraq', then I would have to say no, if certain problems could be resolved peacefully.

We discovered Iraq is not a strong a threat to America as we once thought.

But we also discovered how Saddam murdered his people, how his sons raped, tortured and murdered Iraqis, and the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. Knowing what we know now, something would have to be done about the human rights violation and the UN corruption. Perhaps that could be done without war, knowing what we know now.

But we did not have that hindsight and I do not think Bush lied about it. Saddam played cat and mouse with inspectors, thumbed his nose at the world and thumped his chest much like NK and Iran has. He was a murderous dictator with a history of using WMD to kill tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of his own people and Iranians. He invaded two of his neighbors and threatened a third. And he was in violation of many items on the UN resolution.

Saddam had to go. And with the corrupt UN taking bribes from him, the Iraqis would have continued to suffer and die without any end in sight. Yes, if we knew then what we know now, the corrupt UN officials could have been dealt with and then the ‘fixed’ UN could have applied more force to stop Saddam from his human rights violations. That might have or might not have involved war. But none of this came to light until after we invaded.

My main disappointment with the current situation is that the Iraqis are not helping us as much as they could. This is their future and their country. They need to step up and help us bring peace to their country. If they don’t, we should give them a timeline of pulling out and concentrate on Afghanistan.

To cut from the long-windedness, I would say No. Instead we concentrate on Afghanistan, we stop the UN corruption, and we use peaceful means first to stop Saddam of his human rights violations. That failing, which it probably would, America and the ‘fixed’ UN take a more forceful approach. I think the only way Saddam would stop his human rights violations would be to be removed from power. I do not think any other way would work.