Yeah Steve - you did state your reasons for why we should have invaded Iraq. Now, I'm guessing you're not part of any govt. agency with access to the classified info used as evidence for the invasion - but rather you base your opinion on what this administration cherry picked as evidence. Did you happen to read the story this week from Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (a Powell aid) who said the whole UN dog and pony show was the lowest point in his life. Here's a link - http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Basically this guy says that the information given to them to present to the UN was like a Chinese menu where they had to pick and choose the info to build the case - and some of the most "damning" evidence was given to them by a known lyer..nicknamed by the CIA as Curveball. And it was this evidence that justified our invasion. Steve - there were no WMD - and our intelligence community knew that. But Bush's lies convinced you (and still do I guess) that our invasion was just. It wasn't then and still isn't now.

As to why I asked why you think Iraqi civilians are more expendable than we are - is because you said we should be bringing the fight to them. This echoes the sentiment I hear from Bush apologists (and Bush himself) who say if we don't deal with the terrorists "there" then it'll be in our backyard. Iraq wasn't a hotbed of terrorism prior to our invasion (relative to other areas in that region). We simply chose to fight our war on terrorism there...in their backyard. What gave (or gives) us that right? I ask again - what gives us the right - right now? You answered the question by deflecting with a comment about the Sudan - I'm presuming to show a relation between the govt. sanctioned killings there and those that were happening in Iraq. So that's it - we have the right to cause the death of over 23 thousand Iraqi civilians to stop the killing of Iraqi civilians? That's your answer?

Dan