>>Sorry, I can't let this non-sense go. So the slaughter of 100s of thousands of innocent Iraqi's as well as the torture and rape chambers were not "harmful"? At what point do you consider appeasement and diplomacy pointless?
>
>But if that's the criterion for attacking a sovereign nation that isn't an immediate threat to us, there are several dozen countries we should be taking out. Why Iraq?

Violation of UN sanctions, for one. Now that we know about the oil-for-food scandal, I think we can see why they were eternally doomed to failure. That also gives us an inkling of why France, Germany and Russia did not support us. $$$$$$ for them and risk of exposure once Saddam was deposed. We did not find WMD, but we did find $Billions$ of US dollars in his palaces. I wonder where that came from.

If Iraq can be turned into a democracy, this places a huge lever in that part of the world with respect to pressuring other such countries to embrace these same principals. Plus it is a win-able situation and would be more easily so if more truth about all the positive accomplishments that have happened there were trumpeted by our media instead of mostly what has been negative. Unfortunately, the political foes of this Administration would rather try to make political points by undermining our efforts there at every oportunity. We are there now, it is ours to fix, and no wailing is going to change it. So the reasons why we took out Saddam are now a moot point.