My reason is that I believe that he will put America's interests first, despite the personal cost to him.  Case in point is the Iraq war.  Conspiracy theories aside, Bush never wavered in his position and support for the war, believing it to be a vital part on the war on terror and more then in America's interest to do something.  Even when it was looking as thought that support was going to cost him- when other Presidents (or President-wannabes) would have changed their position in order to salvage their political career, President Bush remained steadfast.

And I happen to agree that Iraq is a vital front in the war on terror, so naturally, I am encouraged by his steadfastness.  I hope that when ultimatums are given to Syria, Iran, and North Korea (likely in that order), he will remain steadfast.

It is in our best interest to have the middle east rid of regions that can serve as terrorist training grounds, for example.   Afghanistan was clearly one, but Iraq was, too.   Examples include Salman Pak not too far from Baghdad and the training camp belong to Al Ansar Islam in Northern Iraq.  Salman Pak was a government operation, the Al Ansar Islam was an 'independent' outfit that operated with protection for Hussein.

And Hussein was in a state of war with the US just as Al Qaeda had been.  There has been a sad habit ever since WW2 of not calling a war a war.  Not doing so raises all sorts of complications.  Well, Iraq under Hussein had been in a state of war with the US- we made the mistake of thinking of it as some sort of police action.  Though I would have preferred some formal declarations even under President Bush, I am glad that he understood what the true state of affairs are.  So in this respect, what is 'good for the Iraqis' is really irrelevant.  They were in a state of war with us, and now they've paid the price.

However, it is not in our best interest to let Iraq or that region become unstable, if only because we don't know where Saddam's WMD are and because of the obvious fact that terrorists would take it over again.  Therefore, it is good and right of us to rebuild Iraq, just as we rebuilt Japan and Germany and Italy, and for the same reasons.

I am sntjohnny, hear me roar.

Or, as antichrist would say,

"I are sntjohnny, here me roar.'

okay you guys are wierd?

The real reason probably is that Bush probably wants to start a holy war. And I would never support a Christian that makes propaganda against Atheist.

The real reason probably is that Bush probably wants to start a holy war.

   

And I would never support a Christian that makes propaganda against Atheist.

How is this relevant?

Think about it. The only countries so far invaded by Bush have been Afganistan and Iraq, which are both Islamic countries. Though, North Korea we know has Nuclear capability, we do nothing too. We didn't know if Iraq has Nuclear, Chemical, and/or Biological weapons.

Well said, Jason.  

I would add that one significant factor related to North Korea is that North Korea is well supported by one very dangerous country in the region- China.   In the Korean War, China came to NK's defense.  There is plenty of reason to think they would do the same.  Also, NK is so backwards that China basically pulls the strings there, anyway.  Dealing with the 'NK problem' means dealing with the China problem which means dealing with the Taiwan problem.

Don't you worry, though.  NK and China are going to behave.

Dealing with the 'NK problem' means dealing with the China ...

which means dealing with a country that has UN veto power, if I am not mistaken.

Yeah...because when God said to love the rest of the world as He loves us, what he REALLY meant was that we should turn our backs on it and hope that everyone else goes down in a blaze of glory. True Love = seflishness, right?

Right?