teribus, you said, "Apart from which I have yet to read one post of yours (Dianavan) comdemning any Islamic Government for human rights abuses."

Then I guess you can't read, teribus because I said, "Islamic governments are not well known for their civil liberties."

Would I have preferred it if Saddam Hussein were still in power?

Thats not the point. The point is that the U.S. should not have invaded but should have continued to negotiate through the U.N. I doubt if Saddam would have killed any more people than the U.S. has killed in the same space of time.

Maybe we should tally the number of deaths that can be attributed to the U.S. and compare it to the number of deaths that can attributed to Saddam minus the help he got from the U.S. We know that we cannot attain these facts but we all know that the U.S. is responsible for one hell of alot of death and destruction. At least Saddam did not destroy the country and its infrastructure.

Britain is no better. They have a very long history of invasion of other countries that pre-dates World War II. Would you like to compare the number of deaths caused by British invasions to the number of deaths attributed to Saddam?

Saddam is a monster but the combined forces of the U.S. and Britain are even worse and the tally of innocent deaths is much higher.

Get off your high horse and realize that the U.S. and Britain should start minding their own business on their own turf and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations unless they have the support of the U.N. Without international support, the U.S. and Britain are merely war mongers in pursuit of economic gain.

If they were interested in democracy, they would be doing a better job of it at home. In other words, they would be listening to the people. There is more to a mandate than a crooked election.

Since you obviously didn't read my previous post and attempted to put words in my mouth, I will, like other Mudcatters, refuse to enter into any further dialogue with you.