Well, aside from the fact that you missed the traditional "pub's closing" reference entirely:

No goddam war on the planet Earth, fought for any reason, has not resulted in the death of innocent civilians. Usually a lot of them.

In fact, if you want to get technical about it, the death of soldiers is no cause for celebration either.

So, if you think you can justify a war for any reason, you have to make a judgment that the deaths involved are worth the goal.

The Civil War. World War II. The Revolutionary War. The Spanish Civil War, beloved of the Left. Any goddam socialist revolution you can think of, also enthusiastically supported by the Left. All wars thought by some to be fought for good causes, because the cost to humanity of not fighting it, losses or no losses, was deemed to be worse.

If you want to state that you do not see the removal of Saddam Hussein from the necks of 20 million people as worth a military conflict, and some civilian deaths, that's your judgment call, and you're entitled to it. If you think this particular interference with a sovereign nation is wrong, that's your call too. I'm not surprised...for fifty years or more the Left has been tolerant of much worse totalitarian regimes. Better Red Than Dead, right?

But you are starting to sound like any military action for any reason that results in civilian deaths is therefore immoral solely for that reason, and that doesn't stand up.