To free a people from oppression.

Really? I'm reminded of a commentary I saw in the New Zealand Listener magazine back during the early days of the Bosnian genocide. It read "Ten Reasons Why the US Will Not Intervene in Bosnia". Following that were ten copies of the same line which stated "There is no oil in Sarajevo". Pardon my cynicism. :) I do realise that intervention did come... eventually. Anyway, this is a great image. Wonderful job on the bleeding flag. Wish I had answers to the question.

You both are right , and that's why the coint representing liberty but also $$.

Graphically, very nice. There are a multitude of reasons including 12 years of thumbing their noses at the U.N. resolutions. Long range missiles, shooting at planes patrolling the no fly zone etc. etc. etc. The real question should be, "What took so long?" Another question: "Why was U.S. the only major country with the backbone to confront the problem?" Answer: "The major players (France, Germany, the U.N. were bought off by Saddam." I am grateful that 38+ other countries support the U.S. efforts even if their support is only minimal. Sorry to see Spain go, but oh well...

greed and arrogance .anyonewho believes we have LIBERATED the iraqi people must then answer the question : What kind of lesson in democracy are we teaching when we invade a country under false pretenses, lie about the WMD and then justify it all by saying that the iraqi people are better off? it would seem that democracy is about lying to justify oil greed . this is the lesson in democarcy we have taught all emerging nations. and ask the famalies of the OVER 10,000 civilians that have been killed in the past year if they feel liberated.

The people who are making the decision about america's presence have many many years of diverse investments in the region and in iraq in particular. there are a few solid political reasons for the actions taken, many more solid reasons to stay out. One thing is certain, its not about liberating a people, and its not about altruism in even the smallest way.

What was the over-riding reason? Protecting Americans from further 9/11 style attacks. Forget the WMD (or the lack thereof), the oil, the "false pretenses," and all the other cynical "reasons" for sitting back, doing nothing while a madman trains terrorists to attack us. Ask all the families of the OVER 100,000 civilians who were murdered by Saddam how liberated they felt. That's if you can find any family members still living - usually he took the entire family out.
I'm so glad to see that there are so many clairvoyant people here - you seem to be able to fathom the motives of other people. Even ones you've never met.

No clairvoyance needed. You can substitute a bit of research of official US documents freely available on the web. They will tell you some unwelcome, but (hopefully) thought-provoking facts. Saddam was created, supported and encouraged by successive US governments WHILE he conducted policies that were as cruel as AFTER he fell from US favor. Plenty of US opponents of Saddam warned the US gov't against the blowback potential of that kind of allies way back then. Same kind of people pointed out that the worst repeat offender thumbing its nose at UN resolutions is Israel - almost invariably supported by US vetoes against any attempt to compel Israel to respect the UN resolutions. Israel is also, incidentally, the one Middle East power with WMD - which it refuses to let the UN inspect. Again, their defiance is unswervingly supported by the US. Why the double standards?

Thanks to all of you to express your feeling , and/or opinion unfortunately it wasn't my intention to open a political forum ,this is not the place , so please no more comments like above or I will remove my pic. Thanks for your comprehension.

"What was the over-riding reason? Protecting Americans from further 9/11 style attacks. Forget the WMD (or the lack thereof), the oil, the "false pretenses," and all the other cynical "reasons" for sitting back, doing nothing while a madman trains terrorists to attack us. " Reflash, can you give any single proof of this accusation? I presume that, if the US intelligence services couldn't, you can't either. I know, constant repetition of propagandistic claims prevailed over the facts but that doesn't change the facts. As for "doing nothing", the US and the UK unilaterally -that is without UN mandate- imposed No-Fly zones and have kept bombing sites in Iraq for twelve years. The economic embargo had crippled the ecomomy, the infrastructure was still largely wrecked from the '91 Gulf War. Saddam's army which had once withstood Iran for seven years (with massive US aid including satelite photos of battlefields which helped the Iraqis a lot to optimize their poison gas attacks) was but a shadow of its past might. Saddam was a tyrant but he was completely contained. He was also an arch enemy of all religious fundamentalist movements which is why the intelligence community never came up with any hints of Saddam - Al Qaida ties. The invasion of Iraq has diverted resources away from rebuilding Afghanistan - which is still not on the safe side. It has turned a contained rogue state into a failed state which is now a breeding ground for terrorism. It has further embittered the Islamic world and further alienated most of the world from the US. Admittedly, Islamic terrorists now don't have to enter the US any more to kill many Americans. It is much more convenient to take the bus to Iraq. For the time being. BTW, waging war against another country without Security Council approval and without having been attacked by that country is an international crime - and obvioulsy one of the worst kind. In Nuremberg and Tokio people were hanged for this. There are more lessons to learn from history than "we are always the good guys". Somewhat understandable that Bush has "unsigned" the US accession to the International Criminal Tribunal.

All I'm gonna say is: if I were Al-Queda, I'd vote for Democrats in the next elections. Democrats are Al-queda's strongest US allies. You left room for comments, but no rating or the image. The name of the picture is "Why?" My question is: Were you expecting more people to side with your representation and insult?

Actually since the invasion of Iraq, Repulicans are the party that al-Queda would most like to see remain in power. A public relations coup like Iraq that dosn't come along very often. Bush single handly turned the Arab world from ambivalent to hostile, and made our problem with terrorism ten times worse in the long wrong (and not perceptibly better in the short). Oh yeah, Metonicus, I like how you make statments like that but don't offer anything to back them up. Is it because you couldn't be bothered? Or because you don't have any? I think we all know the answer.

All I can say is that people in USA that are the age between 18-25 years of age or if the Selective Service changed rules to 18 to 34, you better not vote for bush and reseach your local congress canidates on there view of the military draft. A military draft is on the way if we don't act now! If you don't believe me, Google News "military draft" and "selective service".

To kill people of course. The measure of success in the Bush family.

Wow, a very heated thread this has been indeed. Everyone has valid points points here. THDUV, you ca nnot expect to post a pic with a political atmosphere and not have people comment on it. That's what art is all about - expression and interpretation. On a different note, the use of the coin in your pic was a great idea - liberty or $$$. I'm sure both elements have played a role in our leader's decision for such actions.

Everybody already explained you WHY... So perhaps I could give you one reason WHY Polish troops are risking their lives supporting coalition, and French are not: Because : We are courageous enough. In 1938 French preferred to give Czechoslovakia to Hitler than to risk their lives - We were the first that said - NO! In 1939 French preffered to play in "drole de guerre" instead of fighting. (Probably because Legion Etrangere is the only French formation capable to fight) Perhaps in your next picture you could ask WHY France have build Saddam's atomic reactors? Perhaps Iraq needed nuclear power to produce electricity because they have not enough oil? What a bullshit! They wanted NUKES! But they were too stupid to advance their program as quickly as they give impression. Make no mistake, if Saddam would succeeded to build some A bombs, he would nuke Paris too!