There is still one question that I have yet to see answered satisfactorily: What business is it of the US' (or indeed the UN's) to replace the government of a country thousands of miles away? Or to attempt to bring about its replacement? It can be said for Iraq as well as for Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Greece (remember the CIA-backed Colonels' Junta? no Greek will forget), etc etc. Where there is no immediate threat by that country (at least, no proven one), there can be no excuse.

I don't condone what Saddam did to his own countrymen, but it should be THEY that topple him from power. After all, we all have the Government we deserve, right?

I wonder how people would feel if another country attacked the US simply to replace Bush, because they don't like his regime. After all, Bush is not good for his country either, is he? Not Saddam-level, I grant you, but still undesirable; and you could argue that his policies constitute a threat to the national security of other countries, and are against those countries' national interests.

But no - it's the rule of the jungle, isn't it... The right of the strongest. That's why I say that politics is about negotiation and barter, not ideals. Ideals are more closely linked to revolution, not politics.