I suspect that since 1991, more Iraqis have died as a direct or indirect result of US and allied attacks on Iraq (culminating in the invasion) than from attrocities carried out by Saddam in the same period. And, the situation in Iraq remains unstable, even with a US occupation force and Saddam gone. I see these 2 things to be fundamental flaws in the strategy to invade Iraq. That is how I rationalise my viewpoint. In fact, even if Saddam did kill more people in the same period, I'd rather that a despot be responsible for the death of innocents than my government, or the allies of my government. It is a matter of perception. The UN provided a way for us to work on an Iraqi solution without being percieved as anti-islamic war-mongerers. Unfortunately GWB didn't see it that way. With hindsight, I'd say someone should have kicked Saddam's !@#$%^&* as he came to power. At the time though, I was probably playing Space Invaders and didn't really care too much. No rationalisation needed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> O really, the only option that the UN offered as usual was to write a angry letter telling Iraq how anrgy they are with him. Yes. Islamic extremists that hate the US or the west have been around for decades. I don't think it is because of money. I think it is because of lifestyle and foreign policy. If we focus on Iraq we see that most Iraqi's don't want the US in their country. The occupation is culturing a new generation of terrorists who will fight for their freedom and their religion. The way that GWB is fighting it, the war on terror is becoming a breeding ground for terror. Enjoy the bread and circuses. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now here monte zuma your justifying the terrorists your saying that its ok for them to attack us becase they don't like that way we live but its not ok for us to do anything back. Now if you remember Bush gave the UN over a year before he went into Iraq and the nations(France and I believe Russia) that shot him down were found be getting lets say " special benefits",