Sorry, Tom, but you completely either missed my point in the earlier discussions or are misremembering entirely. On your bulleted list, only #1 was an accurate reflection of my past statements on this matter.

I will *try* to elaborate further tonight, but suffice to say, for now:

1) is that the 'solution' employed by mr. Bush was one lacking a problem. Iraq was NOT a problem for the US, and was only an irritant in that it was a pety and impotent third-world power that persisted in denying our will and that of the UN.

2) that Saddam was contained and in a box.

3) While him being a 'Bad Guy', for sure, makes me want him out of this world, it did not alone justify this military campaign- morally or ethically or in terms of sound and effective global politics or foreign policy.

It was wrong and irrational, and based on the beliefs of Americans, not facts. (Prove me wrong, anyone?)

Basically, doing this invasion and then turning around and saying "oh, what, do you have some other alternative solution!?!" is pointless when you don't have a clearly defined problem for which the solution [wholesale slaughter] applies.

Nor do we have clear and believable ends or goals for this 'solution'. To illustrate, be so kind as to provide concrete and reasonable 'exit points' for our troops in Iraq. Do so without vague and ambiguous moralization. Also, Establish what subgoals are clear on the path to exit. Demonstrate some sort of reasonable path between the subgoals.

You can't, can you? Hmmm. Neither can the Bush administration. Funny. But you would think that that would have done during the decision making process that lead us to this war? Or is the non-existence of a plan only further proof positive that such a plan is secret?

Or maybe you can, but like me, understand that arguing hypotheticals is about as dumb as arguing about what Salad is best, or what beer is best, or who is sexier- Christina or Brittany? (its clear to me, that the new incarnation of 'bad' bikergirl Brittany is much sexier than Christinas post-apocalyptic cyberslut look, anyone want to PROVE me wrong?)

In general, these hypotheticals are absolutely stupid to argue, and is why I am loath to propose 'how it should have been done differently', even in cases where there was a real need for action. There is always a make-believe failure to a make-believe solution.

Its basically like two children arguing if one was spiderman and one was batman, who would win the fight.

But again, in this case, this 'solution' addressed no real problem, so why even go there?

Davin L.