There's NO doubt the US can absolutely destroy Iraq at little cost in lives to itself. NONE. It ain't a war - it will be a slaughter.

Just as 20 people with RPGs and bazookas could make life in your house a bit dicey, the US can do that in Iraq. Relatively easily. Slaughter people.

That's not the issue. The issue is decency. The US was an ally of Iraq and complicit in it's war crimes. The moral issue, the WMD issue, is moot, a draw, a tie. The US is as bad as Iraq, maybe even worse as it's territory wasn't being fought over.

Iraq is no more of a threat to the US than anyone else.

Taking the national treasure of another country just because you can ain't the sign of a great country.

The Iraqi people seem to be doing much better since the oil for food exchanges came into being in 1998. I predict, though, the people will be treated as the Afghans have, where the "rebuilding" GWB promised hasn't happened except in small, heavily publicized ways. (Don't need to rebuild until the oil fields are opened, and then just roads necessary for those.) This ain't for freedom. And, like the Afghans, anytime you hear of the "humanitarian" aspects of "war" you can know you're being BSed. (Some people find and post these things regularly. Prob'ly believe 'em, too.)

Greed as the major determinant of foreign policy is an old tradition. Instead, though of kings, it's for multi-nationals. People are accustomed to money and might being right, an outgrowth of "free enterprise". Anything which makes money is worthwhile and fair. Free market, and all that. And if the taxpayers will borrow the money for the stealing, so much the better. It's icing on the cake if the folks who pay back the borrowed money are the poorer ones who didn't benefit from the attack..

Arf (Answer - and if the people object, well, they just won't buy gas from Iraq - that's the free market in action!)