In the run up to the American presidential elections we will be asking a panel of voters - selected from as wide a cross-section of people as possible across the US - to share their views on the key issues.
MEET THE PANEL
Name: Jorge Caspary
Lives: Tallahassee, Florida
Works: Civil engineer
In 10 words or less:
"Bolivian immigrant, geologist, father-of-three, moderate Republican"
I will vote for Bush because I believe his administration genuinely believed that Iraq harboured WMDs and following its "pre-emptive strike" policy, it took action.
Events proved that the intelligence services failed.
However, I also believe that the war in Iraq is part of a strategic vision to secure a friendly country with enormous reserves of petroleum.
The United States is not a saint. But it has to ensure that its interests are secure.
And until a petroleum substitute is found, oil will remain the single most important strategic interest.
The USA won the war, but stabilising Iraq has been harder because of the huge language barrier and because we did not understand how ethnically divided Iraq was.
There were mistakes made, such as destroying the only institution capable of keeping order: the Iraqi army.
Yet, it is clear that the majority of the population was happy to see Saddam go.
With the return of a National Guard, the security situation will likely improve.
Not to mention the fact that Nato is now willing to pitch in.
Will religious fanatics continue to kidnap and attack? Probably yes, until the intelligence services improve.
Now that the handover has occurred, the US can focus on the security situation.
The Republican administration can legitimately state that the first phase has been accomplished.
In my opinion, those that will not vote for Bush made up their minds long ago.
However, the percentage of undecided votes will win this election and I think the fact that the transfer of power in Iraq has occurred will have a positive bearing on winning over this key constituency.
The road is long and arduous but the strategic vision of the first phase is intact.
From BBCArabic.com: As an Iraqi I don't care about whether Saddam possessed WMDs or didn't, all that I care about is that the American president saved an entire nation from the dictator who caused the death and exodus of millions of Iraqis. Can't we at least tell the American president "thanks"?
Salah Al Iraqi, Germany
From BBCArabic.com: How would you feel Mr Caspary if someone that you never harmed in anyway came and took your house and imprisoned your beloved son and humiliated you? What would you call that?
Sayed Abdallah, Cairo, Egypt
Jorge: The US already has a petroleum substitute. It's called renewable energy. How about investing the money spent on invading Iraq on subsidising renewable energy. Then you wouldn't have to overthrow or invade "strategic interests" as well as helping the environment. I was for the war, but the way it has been implemented has been nothing short of a complete PR disaster.
Brian Clancy, Dublin, Ireland
"And until a petroleum substitute is found, oil will remain the single most important strategic interest." I read this as: "Let's do anything (even killing) to get oil until a petroleum substitute is found."
Jorge Benito Cámelas, Bogotá, Colombia
Mr Caspary seems to have a very well reasoned opinion here. No bombast, slander or name calling. Some will try to insult his opinion because he mentioned oil. If the US had just wanted Iraqi oil, it would have simply asked the UN to lift its sanctions.
Sternberg, Mauldin, USA
"I will vote for Bush because I believe his administration genuinely believed that Iraq harboured WMDs". You are basing your vote on a belief? How about the truth? "I think the fact that the transfer of power in Iraq has occurred will have a positive bearing on winning over this key constituency." Why are American citizens incapable of understanding that there is no Iraqi sovereignty, just as there is no Afghan sovereignty?
Meghan Myres, Canada
Well done Jorge. Many nations like France were opposed to the war because they knew another leadership could come in which was not friendly to them. Well done Bush for the difficult decision you made. The world is safer and the next few years will prove what we mean.
Eric, Sydney, Australia
Jorge's view that it is ok for the US to secure its interests regardless of the rest of the world is one of the problems not only with this administration but with the Republican Party as well. The US is not the only user of oil (though we are the largest) and had no right rationalising this war to obtain that oil. Iraqi oil flowed before this war, the problem was the profits from it were not being reaped by those who wanted them.
Sean Rodriguez, Staatsburg, NY, USA
"Iraq is part of a strategic vision to secure a friendly country with enormous reserves of petroleum". Is this justified? The USA is allowed to "secure" any country it wants so that you don't have to spend so much on gas? How about "securing" Saudi Arabia then, source of most of the 9/11 terrorists? You can get your hands on all that oil there too, in a perfectly "justified" way.
Nik Lawrence, London, UK