It has been said that the Saddam problem is more of a situation of a dozen, different 'smouldering" guns that all add up to more than ample justification to forcibly remove him from power, in the name of peace and security, for Iraqis, for his neighbors, for the entire world.

What exactly is the standard by which tyrants are measured, in terms of being "evil' enough to be booted out of power in their countries by the UN, or US, or NATO? Like it or not, a post-Cold War precedent of sorts was established when the US-led NATO countries acted without UN approval to essentially bomb Milosevic out of power in Serbia, because he was too "evil", causing strife and endangering lives. And he certainly was doing that. But the undeniable fact is that if force, without UN approval, was justified to remove Milosevic, then it certainly is justified to remove Saddam.

But then again, the opposition to a war to remove Saddam isn't based upon morality, or how "evil" he is.