Your first link seems to show the how false the impression of a screwed up war plan and Rummy domination is. Don't see how it relates to the rest of your post.

I'd think after days of posts it would be clear Americans view this as a war of liberation not conquest. It should also be obvious by the conduct of our soldiers and the increased risk they took to minimize civilian casualties that Bush & Co are doing far more than lip service to the liberation goal. It should also be obvious by Iraqi reaction where they are confdent they are liberated that they appreciate it.

You comment that Iraqis never felt the threat is an obvious case of denial. Reports have come from all over and many sources of how much fear people displayed when asked to comment on Saddam.

As for an immoral war, I strongly disagree.

The fact that France blocked any UN approval does not make it immoral. France blocking action to protect its interests is immoral.

It is not immoral to resume hostilities with a former enemy who has continuously violated the terms of his treaty.

It is not immoral to overthrow a tyrant killing his own people. The objection on civilian casualties grounds overlooks the net amount of lives saved and the numbers of Iraqis that would have been killed if they had tried to do it themselves. What do you think the civilian casualities would have been in an Iraqi civil war given much less accurate weapons and likely a far longer war?

Regards,
Mark