Tom, the issue for me has never been whether or not Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, wanted WMD's or had intent to dump them on us. The primary issue in going to war needs to be what the eventual outcome will be to your action and in Iraq I simply could never see that area ending up any better off after removing the current regime. Yes, there will be people that will no longer be repressed by Saddam, at least in the short term but look at our history in forcing regime change. WE SUCK AT IT. That's the bottom line. Our only success really is in Japan and that had a whole different environment to it. The citizenry was not fractionalized. When the emperor told them they were surrendering, their culture was one that said to go along and of course the free world had just beaten them, not just the Americans. In nearly every case in our recent future, our attempts to oust some dictator has come back to bite us with an even more irrational government and of course that new wacked out military is now armed with American rifles and anti-aircraft missiles.

Most of the Middle East experts I've heard talk have been extremely doubtful that an area like Iraq, with its extreme fractionalization, can ever become a functioning democracy. Religious extremism will always rule the debates there and any attempt for us to limit that will be seen as an attack on Islam which in essence it would be. If we wanted truly to bully a nation into modernization why not invade Mexico? Their graft and corruption and economic disparity affects us so much more than an unstable country thousands of miles away.

Saddam was evil and despicable. Ok, get over it. Until he beats us up after school we don't have permission from society or our parents to take him out. It's a tenet of civilization.