[KevinTheOmnivore]

Remember: The U.N. inspectors would not be within a thousand miles of Baghdad without the threat of force. Saddam would not be making a single concession without the knowledge that forces were gathering against him.

This is a fair point, but not all that true. Both the British and American regimes want this war. The American regime wanted this war PRIOR to 9/11. The U.S. has NEVER really placed that carrot at the end of the proverbial stick, and you can see that all throughout the 90s. Whether put in actual policy or not, the end goal has always been to get rid of Saddam. He may be crazy, but he's not stupid.

Iraq, under Saddam became the first country to use chemical weapons against its own people. Are we sure that if we let him keep and develop such weapons, he would not use them again against his neighbors, against Israel perhaps?

WHILE he was our buddy. Where was the indignation then????

Lets also keep in mind that whether or not it was "innocent Kurds" he gassed is highly debatable. He is a horrible man, who DID gas people. But lets also keep in mind how brutal and terrible the Iranian regime was. They sent children to the fron to be butchered as sacrifices to God. We saw the tactics of the "Butcher of Baghdad" to be a necessary evil back then. Now we use it as a convenient foot note in his indictment.

If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war. But there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is that he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people.

For someone who claims to detest the "old ways" of Europe, he sure continues to view the world through that scope. We live in a different world. There are more than two options. How long does Iran tolerate the Ayatollah once they become more liberal both culturally and economically? Placing oppressive sanctions on a country like Iraq is exactly the WRONG way to get rid of a dictator, IMO.

A country that in 1978, the year before he seized power, was richer than Malaysia or Portugal. A country where today, 135 out of every 1,000 Iraqi children die before the age of five--70% of these deaths are from diarrhea and respiratory infections that are easily preventable. Where almost a third of children born in the center and south of Iraq have chronic malnutrition.

Again, no mention of sanctions, and likewise no mention of the advancements in Iraq PRIOR to the first Gulf War. Despite having Saddam as a leader, Iraq has continually been pegged by the UN (forgot the committe name off hand) as one of the most advanced Arab societies. Prior to the Gulf War, they had a water filtration system that made even Europe jealous. Women can attend college, unlike some of our trusted "allies," such as Saudi Arabia (or was it Turkey?? Maybe Qatar?? Our new friend Syria??? Oh hell, they're all better than Iraq, right?).

Where half the population of rural areas have no safe water.

Read above. And as for the "Well, Saddam has palaces, his people starve, blah blah," before sanctions his people had water. Yet after sanctions it's somehow his fault they don't. The American economy is struggling, when will our President sell off some of his stock investments, maybe give up the Texas ranch and re-invest it into public works...? California could've used his money not too long ago.

Not a bad read, you're right. I agree with a lot of what he had to say. And even though I disagree with him, I respect his eloquence.