The war in Iraq is unnecessary. Yes, no one in their right mind could be sad that Saddam Hussein and his sadistic team of tyrants are deposed. Nevertheless, it is not the right, nor the responsibility, for the US to interfere in the control of another country. Our soldiers lives and limbs, and the tax dollars robbed from our citizenry, are not the properties of the Politicians in Washington.

Here is a great article analyzing the issue:

http://207.44.245.159/article7558.htm

Here is an interesting statement that nicley analyzes the Iraq Invasion and Pre-emptive War:

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 6, 2005

Who’s Better Off?

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of
the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify
the war, the retort is: “Aren’t the people of Iraq better off?”
The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations
about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and
every ruthless act he ever committed.  The short answer to the
question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it’s too
early to declare, “Mission Accomplished.”  But more importantly,
we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or
legitimate.  Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim
yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are
illegitimate?  Do the ends justify the means?

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false.
There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not
participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United
States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by
cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid
any of the bills.  Congress failed to declare war, but instead
passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as
justification for our invasion.  After the fact we’re now told the
real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and
that the Iraqis are better off.  Anyone who questions the war
risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of
democracy, or “supporting terrorists.”  It’s implied that lack of
enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn’t
support the troops.  In other words, one must march lock-step with
the consensus or be ostracized.

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam
Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own
government that led to the regime change.  In time it will become
clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war
and interventionist nation-building will have much greater
significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.  The
interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than
the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. 
The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign
policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false
information?”  Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should
not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only
when our national security is threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people?  Hundreds of thousands
of former inhabitants of Fallujah are not better off with their
city flattened and their homes destroyed.  Hundreds of thousands
are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their
street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities.  One hundred
thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal,
certainly are not better off.  Better to be alive under Saddam
Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics
of the war.  Yet the election was held under martial law
implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully
condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and
more recently in Lebanon.  Why is it that what is good for the
goose isn’t always good for the gander?

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are
the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does
not create freedom.  In our own history we note that freedom was
achieved first and elections followed-- not the other way around.

One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of
the vote, but such an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would
preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the
Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming.  This reminds us
of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked
about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote,
and he assured us that would not happen.  Democracy, we know, is
messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results.

Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as
being surrounded by unmanageable territory.  The highways in and
out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war
will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it’s already
underway.

We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed
to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the
hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the
war.  Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian
Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil.  Yet now
that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a
great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs
approaching $3 per gallon.

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no
government in place and the next election-- supposedly the real
one-- is not likely to take place on time.  Do the American people
have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by
corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq.
Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the
accounting of these funds.  The over-billing by Halliburton is no
secret, but the process has not changed.

The whole process is corrupt.  It just doesn’t make sense to most
Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary
and unjustified war.  First they see American bombs destroying a
country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it.
Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq
than to build a bridge in the United States.  Indeed, we cut the
Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our
veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because
they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this: “Are Christian
Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq
through force of arms?”  The answer is plainly no.

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under
Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion.  Tariq
Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign
Minister-- something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia,
Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country.  Today, the Christian
churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer
safe.  Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate
to Syria.  It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the
U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now
going on against Christians in Iraq.  Both the Sunni and the
Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians.  In fact,
persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they
agree-- the other being the removal of all foreign forces from
Iraqi soil.

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq,
it’s difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all
feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam
Hussein.  Security in the streets and criminal violence are not
anywhere near being under control.

But there’s another question that is equally important: “Are the
American people better off because of the Iraq war?”

One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren’t
better off.  The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened
American troops are not better off.  The families, the wives, the
husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much
are not better off.

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist
against their will-- a de facto draft-- are not feeling better
off.  They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment
agreements.

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200
billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent.
The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-
butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much
worse.

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off?  I’d
say no.  Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are
weaker than ever.  The anti-American hatred among a growing number
of Muslims around the world is greater than ever.  This makes
terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion.
Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated.  Iraq is being used as a
training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under
Hussein’s rule.  So as our military recruitment efforts suffer,
Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more
than twice that.  I wonder who benefits from this?

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national
security and defense of this country.  Military spending is up,
but the way the money is spent distracts from true national
defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.

The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in
diminishing morale in our military services.  Recruitment is
sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops.  Many
young Americans rightly fear a coming draft-- which will be
required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of
our foreign policy.

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and
obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and
increase in the national debt.  If these trends persist, inflation
with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a
misdirected policy.

One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we
ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal
liberty.  Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies
armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to
sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory.  The real irony
is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and
our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms
here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.

This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has
been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September
11th war on terrorism.  Security has replaced liberty as our main
political goal, damaging the American spirit.  Sadly, the whole
process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of
growing militant nationalism.

These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our
eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not
responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop
in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due
process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted
criminals.

We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary,
constitutional, and morally justifiable.  Starting a war without a
proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the
U.S. Congress.  Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on
Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.

A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership
think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that
prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who
instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers-- not the
warmongers.

We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we
have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image
regardless of the number of people who die in the process.

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our
country great.  We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace,
the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding
entangling alliances with the rest of the world.  Spreading the
message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world
has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only
practical tool to influence the world-- and we have accepted, as
the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against
others.

In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation
of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and
judicial branches-- not to mention international government
bodies.  The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an
issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.

Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue
that drives political thought in this country.  If this goal is
replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to
plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world,
against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only
with the establishment of a totalitarian state.  There’s no need
for that.  It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide
our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.

When I sent the above article to a respected family member, the response I received was:

"9/11/01"

My reply is: