Tom wrote: "Saddam was not a pickpocket, or someone who just committed a first offense. He did not shoot a bank guard during a robbery. He was not fingered by genetics."

And we killed around 10-15,000 people- True or false, Tom? Yes or No? Or is this Logical Horseshit too?

'paying him back for his crimes', is that what we were doing? Paying 10-15,000 folks who mostly had nothing to do with Saddam back for Saddams crimes?

Where is Saddam anyway?

Where is the stable and murder-free Iraq, that is so much better than Saddams Iraq? Hmmm? I'm waiting.....

Tom wrote: "Saddam Hussein and his sons have, over the past decades, murdered hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise probably be alive today. Mass graves. Institutionalized torture. Deliberate starvation. Invasion of his neighbors. Annihilation of a population's ecosystem. The nerve gassing of entire villages."

Sure, Bad MoFos. Deserve an ugly death, Glad their gone. But why on earth does this justify the murder of another set of people who had nothing to do with Saddams evil? If the callous disregard of human life of ONE person renders a whole group up for invasion and assassination, then lets invade your home town next.

tom wrote: "People like you fascinate me. Exactly what the living hell does someone have to do before you can decide that he has made evil a full-time career?"

Tom, I'm not sure what is more absurd and tragically dumb- that you attribute some sort of affinity or forgiveness to Saddam to me, or that you think that if one Hates Saddam, one must support the war, or that you actually wish to berate me for using reason and 'logical horseshit' in a debate with you. Love you to death Tom, but you really are hard to respect when you try these rhetorical wiggles on me.

Tom wrote:"We didn't set out to kill 10,000 people (I notice your number keeps expanding). We didn't set out to kill anyone. Saddam could have ended this any time he wanted to before the fact. Where were the protest signs calling for Saddam to step down? To do one damn thing to keep the peace? "

No, my number has remained 10-15,000 since the end of the war for months, after I looked into body-count estimates. You accuse me of dishonesty- put up or shut up... find a quote in the last month that significantly differs and post it.

tom wrote: "Did I just miss them among the thousands calling Bush the worst monster ever to walk the face of the Earth?"

Saddam was in the 'league of extrodinary monsters' for sure. I have never argued this, despite your desperation to shove that down my throat. The world is rife with monsters just as demonic and evil, some of them are our allies. We did not invad Iraq because Saddam was a monster. Thats just the sugar coating. Get real. Learn History. Learn Geography.

And That Saddam was a monster still does not excuse us killing 10-15,000 folks. Because someone does the morally unforgivable, does not mean we get to do the morally reprehensible and be right.

"This is a reeking load of your usual logical horseshit. Hey, an asteroid could hit Baghdad tomorrow, too. I have no PROOF it won't. Sell it to someone who buys this kind of thinking."

Appples and basketballs. In one scenario you are advocating for the death, the purposeful and premeditated slaying of THOUSANDS of people. In the other, its an non-moral, non-ethical proposition. An asteroid is a rock.

Yes, Tom, anything can happen, and nobody can be sure, and that is precisely why you don't go slaughtering people when you don't know what the future holds and you can't be sure you won't leave the place a with worse mess than Saddam. What if we have to go to war with Korea next month?

And if you can't buy that reasoning, you are too poor in reason and too rich in righteousness.

Tom wrote: "The hard fact is that if we had done what you thought we should have, Saddam and Sons would still be in power, and we KNOW how they treated their people. Is there any rational reason for assuming that would have changed? At least now the country of Iraq has a chance. Your way, they would have had none. "

Tom. Go out and kill every criminal in cold blood, today, and you can LOGICALLY say "in a year from now, THOUSANDS of innocent victoms they WOULD have killed would still be alive". This fact does not make it ethical to go slaughter everyone with a criminal record. Same situation- a lot of mostly bad people are dead, and thousands of people who would have been dead are alive. In fact, by your reasoning, we SHOULD do this, as thousands more bad people will die than Saddam and Sons, which is only three.

The ends don't justify the means. I'm sorry Mommy and Daddy never taught you that as a child. They should have.

Let me re-iterate... MAybe it will click:

No person or people has the right to weigh on a scale the death and suffering of thousands versus their beliefs about how the world should be. There are moral cases for war, and self defense of a nation of people is one them. You are not God, Tom, and only a God has the right to make the moral decisions you make with such devil-may-care ease. Since I don't think God exists, that means NOBODY has the right to which you arrogate. Yes, the world sucks sometimes, but the only way to make it better is to act in a way consistent with your principles and encourage others to do so as well- WITOUT using death, murder, suffering, maiming etc as an instrument of encouragement.

Davin L.