weren't they supported by Afganistan? How did Iraq get pulled into the equation? Why are we focusing there again?

Ok lets straighten some facts here. The premise for attacking Iraq was that they had weapons of mass destruction, and possibly a connection to 9/11. Essentially neither of these has turned out to be true.

However, it is entirely false that Iraq has no connection to terrorists. Al Qaeda is fairly rampant there.

you are bringing up two different issues... I served as Air Force Explosive Ordinance Disposal, I went overseas, and pardon my lingo, assholes like you make it harder on the troops, this is a nice refreshing look back at vietnam, you are making morale over there very harsh, instead of end the war protests, we know nobody wanted us over there, nobody cares about your voice, instead, go find a uso office, get an address of a company, or unit and send letters from home, tell them you thank them for what they are doing, DEFENDING YOUR COUNTRY... and be glad they are doing so, who knows what language we'd all be speaking if it wasn't for them doing what you'd never do, fight... and unfortunatly give up their life so you can watch tv, read a book, sit on your ass, drink your coffee, act, anything you do in a day go thank a soldier, until then, shut your mouth about bring them home, send a letter

Well Saddam certainly was a type of terrorist, relying on terror tactics against his people to hold power, kinda like his ancient predessesor Sargon was a terrorist. But we're in Iraq today because we can't leave without making things worse;^]

Check your facts, the Iraquis didn't bomb us, a terrorist group did, not a country. That would be like if the Hells Angels bombed Canada and the Canadians attacked the US. The US does not support the Hells Angels (Just using the name, I have no prejudice against them) but because they reside in this country we take the brunt of it.

Well since you know so much about how active I am, I'll let you think what you think, and live in your own private fox hole.

Laughable...Sell that to Mccain ..our next President...You liberals seem to forget that we are a warring nation...Everything this country has gotten or will get has been gained on the backs of our fighting men... So grab a double latte at your nearest Starbucks and hug a tree, but before you do , hug a vet and thank him...

Has anyone been able to get any stats on support for the war from soldiers? The most recent I can find is from 2006

actually what would happen is the day to day casualities would go down sure, but then every year we'd have a 2,000 killed in some sort of catastropic event, and more of our troops are dying in car accidents then from actual combat... trust me... our troops are damn good at what they do, fighting isn't the problem long stressful hours are...
~A1C Christopher Reece USAF

It's a hard stat to come up with really, most soldiers aren't really allowed to show much public opinion while in service. At least they weren't while my family members were still in service;^]

one thing that I like about the new face of the military is that I have a choice now...I could and would always thank a vet but now I can hug her...

Good point

I think you are really really misunderstanding me, I DO support our troups, and I am eternally grateful for what they do, and for what the genrations before them have done. Because I have a great love for the military men and women, I don't support THIS war, yes, we have had wars that were necessary. THIS one is not. We have gotten in so deep and the reason we started this is no longer the case. We need to bring them home, honor them, but not the politicians who put them there.

I WILL never disrespect a vet. They did what they vowed to do, even if it may have been fully against their values and morals. In no way do I disrespect them. My uncle was a Vietnam vet, my father was a vet, someone I love very very dearly now is on his second tour in the heat of it, I honor and respect and love them, but not this war.

okay wait
is there two differat topics in here going on?
everyone supports each and every soldier over there right and wishes them a safe return and we want them home alive..theres no argument about this so please stop saying we're ungreatful for them!
it is what they are being told or forced to do and why or why not they shouldnt be doing it is what is being debating..correct?

Yes, some people just want to discredit people in the wrong way to win what they see as a personal attack.

if this war was going better would it then turn into a war that was necessary?..If the WW II had the coverage this war has I wonder how people in the western world would have reacted because at times WW II was going extremely bad for the Allied Forces. One thing you don't know if this war wasn't necessary due to the fact that you don't know what the terrorists would be doing if not fighting in Iraq since the war began..

The very topic of this thread asserts that anyone who supports this war DOESN'T support a soldier. So to me, it sounds like supporting the troops was an issue right from the start...

true true

WW2 we really got involved because Japan bombued us, not some faceless terrorist group, an actual country. Again, go to Europe and sit at a cafe in France and watch the Taliban stroll by. Why aren't we attacking France? They have a HUGE population of Taliban there, have since the 70's. Again why aren't we attacking them?