> I doubt that sabotage and stolen equipment, for instance, entered into the calculations of people who were thinking about how to deal with Iraqi oil facilities.

Umm. You do? Then either you're incredibly naive or else you honestly expect that the entire leadership of the United States is. Knowing the situation we were getting into - and, yes, the government was FULLY aware of the presence of both corrupt officials and Islamic radicals in Iraq; they're sort of why we went in in the first place - it would be a genuinely amazing act of ignorance not to expect sabotage and theft.

Note also that your reference states NOT that no oil can be extracted, but that it's difficult to get the country up to prewar production levels. That's a very large difference.

> Again, I'm on a work break so I don't have time to check this out thoroughly (will try to remember to do so when I get home), but my memories of the coverage of the debate about whether to go to war or not are almost entirely of people talking about WMDs and of those silly satellite pictures that showed supposed weapons factories. Freeing the Iraqi people took a backseat to our reaction to the "threat" that Hussein was supposedly presenting. I'm willing to admit that my memory is incorrect once I see a source that contradicts it, but again I don't have the time to search for sources now and so I'm going on what I remember for the moment.

Hmm? You'll have to point me at the part where I claimed that arms in Iraq was not an issue. I never denied that rhetoric about whether there were weapons of mass destruction played a major role; I merely refuted your statement that freedom for the Iraqi people "became a major objective only after a few months had gone by without our finding any weapons." If the operation is in fact called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," I suggest that freedom for the Iraqis was a fairly substantial objective going in. Whether or not other objectives also existed or were considered more important is not relevant.

> My definition of a good person is someone who:

To take this point-by-point.

> a) takes care to behave in an ethical manner;

Based on my understanding of what "ethical" means (backed up by dictionary.com, at least), you mean that a good person adheres to accepted standards of conduct. Yes?

> b) deeply and sincerely cares about others -- not in a friends-and-family sense, but in a rest-of-humanity sense;

I can't penetrate this statement. In what way is caring about people "in a rest-of-humanity sense" different from caring about people in a "friends-and-family sense?"

> c) consistently acts in ways that improve others' lives but do not directly benefit the person him or herself in any substantial way;

How consistently? Who decides whether or not other people's lives have been improved? How significant an improvement is required to qualify?

> d) does not resort to violence unless given absolutely no other option

How do you define "absolutely no other option?" For example, if you have a desirable goal that cannot be acheived without violence, is that considered having "absolutely no other option?" Or would goodness, in your view, demand abandoning that goal in favour of eschewing violence?