<Without any real thought given to alternatives or the failings of the merits of the case at hand, you endorse killing on the grand scale.

I think we have established that you have no workable alternatives. This is getting a bit old. And there may not be "killing on a grand scale," although certainly the Left will exploit each and every innocent death to the utmost.

What it boils down to is the viewpoint that it is better for the people of Iraq to live for decades under these monsters than to risk dying in a war of liberation.* I suppose this is a legitimate opinion, and certainly the sort of decision that ideally an oppressed person has the right to make for themselves. Sometimes, they can't.

It's possible that the slaves of the old American South might have thrown off slavery on their own without a Civil War. My own take on it is that left alone, the practice would have died off in the face of more economic alternatives. In a generation or so. Should we have left them alone?

When I was a student, the idea of living under oppression instead of risking destruction was expressed in the short phrase, "Better Red Than Dead." In that case, it was pertaining to risking nuclear war in our opposition to the Soviet Union.

The idea was that it would be better to live under communism than risk the wholesale slaughter of a possible nuclear war. It should not go without notice, although it often did back then, that many of the people selling this point of view were communist sympathizers.

Wait and see what the Iraqi people say, when they are finally free to speak.

*And please don't say you are against military action but for removing Saddam. We've been over that ground already.