1) Unpredictable consequences is no excuse to ignore the known consequences of inaction. There is no certainty in life. Every decision is a gamble. Every decision is based on balancing the potential for negative consequences against positive ones.

2) There were more countries involved in Iraq than were in the allied forces. The number involved shouldn't matter anyway if your rule is no attack unless attacked. Try to be consistant please.

3) The opinions about the war in the US were not highly divided going in. A huge majority supported the war and its initial results. In the US we seldom see more than 60 % favor one side or another on a major issue and it was over 70% in favor.

4) Your comments on Vietnam are another of those what in the hell does he mean comments I was talking about. I see no relevance of economic scale to moral justifications for war.

5) Raoul, other people have been trying to assasinate Saddam unsuccesfully for over a decade and such attacks are against US law. Handwaiving away the obvious advances in US military technology is yet another sign of deliberate blinders.

6) Raoul we all know that Russia and France and assorted UN officials were waiting for their latest round of Saddam funding. In the case of Russia and France most if not all of it was legitimate if shady business, but the UN's bribary makes a mockery of those promoting the UN as a solution. No one finds a smoking gun by twiddling their fingers while Saddam stalls for enough time to hide whatever existed at the designated site. France and Russia's failure to object to such tactics makes it very clear that was not their priority. It is also why it is ludicrous to act like WMD suspicions were baseless.

Regards,
Mark