.. the moral imperative for this war would have to be on the level of WW2 (re both the Nazis and the Japanese threat) for me to support such a level of intervention and destruction. In such a case, I could then be (reluctantly) convinced of the necessity of such terrible things as eg., Hiroshima.

So, I don't have big problems with your explanations and justifications - good riddance to Saddam and best wishes for Iraqi democracy - but I am nonetheless not convinced that the US, or any one else, has the right or mandate to carry out this war, ie. given the level of suffering and destruction involved

Now, you can justifiably point out the benefits of having done so, and in particular, the dangers of not doing such policing - fine. But remember that I am saying: for me, the threat has to be at the level of Hitler or Hirohito before you'll get me personally on board.

As with Marxism or any other ideology, I refuse to lend myself to any cause which causes suffering to others, unless a clear, obvious and present danger is involved. You can argue well for the Iraq war but it does not fulfill this criterion IMO.