It's wrong always to use force, yes, but it's also naive to think that diplomacy and patience always work. Was Neville Chamberlain wise or stupid when he tried to stop Hitler with earnest conversations instead of weapons?

A non-violent philosophy is a nice thing to have, but it seldom accomplishes much in the real world, which is why we glorify the exceptional leaders who can succeed with it, e.g. Ghandi. But years of sanctions and UN resolutions meant nothing to Saddam, a dictator (sorry, BBC, but that's what he was) who slaughtered thousands of his own people, made war on at least three nearby nations (Iran, Kuwait and Israel), permitted torture and rape as his sons' birthright, etc., etc. Yeah, they haven't found the WMD's, but they found a lot of mass graves. Is that somehow more acceptable?

It's so easy to slam Bush, especially from across an ocean. But what would you have suggested, instead of the war, that could have removed Hussein from power? What exactly would have been a better idea that would have accomplished the same goal in the same time frame?

Ask any parent. Threats of punishment carry no force unless the punishments occasionally occur.