>>But between Saddam and Bush there is no choice. Between the Osamas and Zarqawis on the one hand, and the US and British and Australian and Canadian forces on the other there is no possible contention.<<

Who the hell are you to tell us there is no possible contention? Of course there is. You sound like Bush and Cheney. OF COURSE we can contend whether Iraq was better off under Saddam than the way it is now. You'd better believe it can be contended and contended rather convincingly.

>>With the most western and enlightened of the Muslim countries putting people to death because betrothed couples are walking hand in hand, cutting heads off for converting to another religion, what is there to seriously say? You want Saddam back? Want to go backwards in time?<<

What evidence do you have that Saddam had people's heads cut off for walking down the street hand-in-hand? Saddam was not at all a strict Muslim and this was supposed to be breaking some Muslim taboo although I have no proof that it is actually true. The amount propaganda thrown around today because of this war makes me take everything I read with a grain of salt. Do I want Saddam back? Pretty stupid question since he's dead and it's a totally moot point now. Would I rather have left him in power? To avoid our current situation, yes. If we aided some Iraqi group to overthrow him, I could have gone along with that. But not this--no, absolutely not.

>>Who is really being stupid?<<

Anyone who says the present situation is still better than Saddam.