This article from April defined this war so clearly. by Arundhati Roy.

[madfloridian]

This is not what I want my nation to be like. I remember a much better America not too long ago. This article has not left my memory. This is what our congress voted for. It is wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927849,00.html

SNIP..."On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN correspondent interviewed an American soldier. "I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty," Private AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for 9/11."

To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was "embedded" he did sort of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that linked the Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his teenage tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. "Yeah, well that stuff's way over my head," he said.

(This is the worst part, and we can not do this as country):

SNIP..."We oughtn't to be surprised though. It's old tactics. They've been at it for years. Consider this moderate proposal by John McNaughton from the Pentagon Papers, published during the Vietnam war: "Strikes at population targets (per se) are likely not only to create a counterproductive wave of revulsion abroad and at home, but greatly to increase the risk of enlarging the war with China or the Soviet Union. Destruction of locks and dams, however - if handled right - might ... offer promise. It should be studied. Such destruction does not kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after time to widespread starvation (more than a million?) unless food is provided - which we could offer to do 'at the conference table'." (Or NOT?)

Times haven't changed very much. The technique has evolved into a doctrine. It's called "Winning Hearts and Minds"....."END SNIP

Yes, this war was wrong.