I'll go one step further than supporing the troops and say that  I support what they are doing.  Yes, undoubtably some evil company is going to profit from the whole thing and that probably contributed to the decision to do it, but in the mean time, a whole bunch of people have been liberated from a maniacle power that did not have their best intrests at heart.  If you look, you will see that most of the present troubles and resentment leveled against the Us troops currently there are not really springing from inside the country but imported to Iraq by people who, once again, do not have the best intrests of the Iraqi people at heart.  They are still just innocent bystanders caught up in a pissing match between us and people who don't like us.  How much easier do you think the mission would be if we didn't have to worry about sabotage and ambush?  How much faster do you think the US Army would leave if they didn't have to defend and kill?  Do you really think the majority of Iraq wants to kill us in our beds?
I do not think that the 10 year (or whatever) embargo against Iraq was cool as it only hurt the people that we should have been helping.  This should have been done long ago the first time.
You say that there is no purpose there, and you've defended that in the past with your reasons, but I think liberation is one of the most important thing we can give to countries like this - the ability to choose thier own future.   Would they be better off if we had never come?  Short term, probably - there wouldn't have been any interuption in the basic services that they see now, but long term, I don't see how anybody could doubt it.
As for induction, I can see it both ways, but that's probably since I wouldn't mind going.

At the very least, we've liberated them from being tortured and thrown into vats filled with sewage waste.
I don't think lots of people realize just what was going on over there.  As a human being, I would have to ask how this country, and every other country, could not do it.
Maybe the Army leadership doesn't have the purest of intentions, but I think most Army personel standing on the sand over there does.  
In the end I'm sure that there will be some kind of controlling intrest from the US there but the people will have a much louder voice than they ever dreamed of.  It's hard to extoll the virtues of the present Govt, but I really don't think that the US would be able to just hold on to Iraq with an Iron fist without taking it on the chin from a world view stance.  I'd like to think that it would turn out similar to Germany and Japan post WW2.  Occupation with increasing independence.

I can agree there. I do believe that a large majority of serving persons do have good intentions and generally want to help. However, that doesn't really matter, as they're not the ones in charge. No matter what happens to Iraq due to American influence, I can't help but feel that it'll fail again. Install another puppet government and you'll eventually have another hostile country somewhere down the road. Had some Imperialist assholes not divided up the eastern empire after World War I in the first place, we wouldn't have these problems. But, that's the past. I do seriously doubt that the appropriate amount of care will be put forth to ensure the survival (or at least establishment) of a truly liberated country.

Whatever the case may be, I have yet to see any weapons of mass destruction

Maybe it should have been finished in Bush Sr.'s time... but it wasn't. And initiating wars off of assumptions isn't a good practice in my eyes. It would have been different if they actually found WMD's, if for only because they said Iraq had them... then so be it.

I'm also not a supporter of forcing our influence onto other nations... sure, the people might not have had the best times... but why should we care? It's not our problem. I'm one for keeping my nose out of other people's business, unless it directly involves me. If anything, in my eyes, all we did was piss off more Arabs.

If the Chinese suddenly decide to invade North America, the draft will be considered just. If a politician wants to send the youth of the nation across the sea in order to fight for his economic gain against the will of the soldiers, then quite frankly I'd rather shoot the draftsmen and politicians

Lets face it the invasion occured (just look where all the goods on your store shelves come from) and the government overstepped its bounds (it slipped Patriot Act 2 through and no one noticed)

I think at this point distrust in politicians has become a politican norm.

You might like this, it is a great article
http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
"Cottrol and Diamond quote Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights John Shattuck to the effect that "n the twentieth century the number of people killed by their own governments under authoritarian regimes is four times the number killed in all this century's wars combined."They thus argue:
We have, in the twentieth century, seen the rise of monstrous states capable of deprivations of liberty far in excess of anything that the English Whigs who authored the Declaration of Rights of 1689--or their American successors in 1791--could have envisioned.... That, in the light of the history of the twentieth century, those we rely on for serious constitutional and political commentary have failed to examine the issues of whether the state should have a monopoly of force and whether an armed population might still play an important role in deterring governmental excesses bespeaks a dangerous intellectual cowardice, a self-imposed limit on political and constitutional discourse that causes us largely to ignore one of the most critical questions of our time."