believe that if war is the only choice it is justifiable if it prevents worse

War has completely UNPREDICTABLE consequences. Much too often, not those intended.
Who will replace Saddam (most important question)?
4 possibilities: Iraq becomes divided like Lebanon; Iraq becomes an islamic republic close to Iran; Iraq is again a secular dictatorial regime, only this time, pro-US, but for how long before it changes its mind (Saddam was also pro-US several years ago) ?
Iraq becomes a democracy? Only if it isn't forced upon it. Democracy means a stable tolerant country, respectful of minorities. Democracy works as a contract between a government and its population, with 3 different powers, regular elections, no corruption, free press, etc...

I tried to make the point earlier by pointing out that your stance implies the US should not have faught Germany in WW2 or 1 for that matter. Is that really what you believe?

Sorry, but the world was much more united against the enemy, then , than it is the case, now. Even inside the US, opinions are extremely divided about the war. Also, between WW2 and now, there was Vietnam.
During WW2, the entire economy and workforce were focused towards the war; now, people still care about peacetime economical issues.

The US has spent a lot of time and money trying to make war as surgical as possible so that the fewest number of innocent bystanders and even colaborating civilians are harmed as possible.

Sorry, but I don't believe that; if it were true, the US should have sent a highly trained, motivated, discreet and paid commando to Baghdad with the specific goal to neutralize Saddam. That would have spared
the lives of thousands! If that was impossible, then wait until the regime would change on its own.

France and Russia were just as obviously stalling for an additional resolution

Sorry, they were waiting for the "smoking WMD gun" to be produced, the proof Saddam was indeed a threat to the world. It never appeared, not even after Saddam was captured.

Raoul