It isn't. I don't think there is such a thing as a moral war.

Wars can, however, be justified, as was our entry to WW II (late, of course), our entry to Desert Storm (on the mark), and our current support of the United Nations against Iraq (dragging on -- 12 years worth -- entirely too long).

With a little rewrite of history, you can even build up arguments for our entries to the Spanish-American War (remember the Maine? we're still trying to figure it out), WW I (our first step out onto the world stage), Korea (more of that red communist threat-thing), Bay of Pigs (fiasco), Cuban Missile Crisis (a little Saddamese "put up, or shut up", I think), Vietnam (issues carried in above posts), Jonestown (no shots fired, but a nice American mess to clean up), Grenada (what? where?), and Panama (it was more a Noriega-thing than a drug-thing).

Now, we could just sit here like moral angels and do absolutely nothing to stop the current terror threat, but that would also be an imoral act -- through inaction. Saddam has the shit, Saddam does not mind using the shit. Saddam has many friends if very, very low places.

We did let Saddam have a choice. Disarm, or get out. He is doing neither, choosing rather to use a poor bluff to call a bluff that does not exist. He will very likely leave the country, or try to, but I don't see this happening until our bomber-sorte on Baghdad is well on its way -- possibly not until the bombs actually start falling.

He will then seek asylum in one of his pet-nations (likely Libya), and we will then be forced to go after him for initiating the strikes on Iraq -- again for the United Nations -- provided the American people don't lose heart and decide the mass murderer was punished enough. Sort of the way Idi Amin was punished -- with a nice palace in Saudi Arabia.

It ain't gonna be easy.

And we ain't gonna stop.

Cheers,
Dan