I voted no, for many reasons. Here are just a few:
1) The ONLY reason Bush attacked Iraq was because Iraq has oil. This is precisely why the US hasn't gotten involved with N. Korea--a country we KNOW has weapons of mass destruction. 2) There was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and none were found. So, suddenly the war was about "Free Iraq" instead of hindering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 3) Free Iraq?? what?? Conditions there are still horrible for the citizens, the rebuilding phase seems to be non-existant.
I agree that Saddam was NOT a good leader, and I guess I agree that he should have been taken out of power. However, many innocent people were killed, and now our own soldiers are being killed as well! We must not forget that this war was NOT originally about freedom--it was about supposed weapons of mass destruction--of which we found none. Iraqi freedom was a far away 2nd, and only exist (I believe) because Bush screwed up and had to find a way out of the bad situation he put himself into. If Bush were serious about freedom, the US would have been involved with countries that are true prisons. The reason we don't is simple: these other countries have no oil.