> ~Chrysan"sorry -- blowing off steam"themum~

The motivations of the President and Congress aren't something I'd be willing to judge, simply because it's possible they knew more than they let on, and also because I think many of them have no principles but let their personalities change with the wind.

As for the war, though, I'd follow the old just war theory rather strictly. War is, almost by definition, mass murder. One should never lightly kill a person, so how much more one should never lightly kill people en masse!

For killing to be permissible, certain requirements are almost universally accepted. The violence used has to be rightly motivated, in response to a grave threat, defensive, an option only after peaceful means are exhausted, proportionate, and have a good chance of succeeding.

Rightly motivated: Unclear.
Grave threat: Certainly not.
Defensive: Neither before ("pre-emptive") nor during ("collateral damage").
Peaceful means exhausted: Unclear, as Saddam's limited compliance with the demands can be tagged either growing success (by the antiwar crowd) or stalling (by the prowar crowd).
Proportionate: Not even close. ("Shock and awe")
Chance of success: Unclear. The country is either racked by terrorism that will gone any day now, we promise (according to the prowar crowd) or in a civil war (according to the antiwar crowd).

So, yeah, I'd say the current Iraq War is absolutely and desperately wicked from its inception to it's bloody terminus in years (or decades) to come.

Oh, and it's dangerous and expensive for us at home in the U.S., too, but that's another matter.

Ga"suspicion of upcoming rebuttals"be