Aldaron, problem is that "he say one thing and be doing the opposite with the other hand" it's simply not true. No, please, make that "not proven" (you know, I don't trust by far Saddam Hussein's word, but the same is for Bush's and Blair's. The difference is that Bush and Blair said what the UN has proven to be lies). Colin Powell and the Brit person (don't remember the name right now) did a real poor apparition at the U.N., with Blix (the chief of the inspectors) telling them they were altering the truth in front of the whole world. Then you say "It's not like we're laying waste to the whole city country". Let's get this straight, please. It could be seen as a necessary evil (not by me, but it could be by someone else), but it's very hard to believe (ok, let's say it's unbelievable) that 18 days of massive bombing on a metropolis are not assimilable under the concept of "laying waste". It is laying waste. To the country, the buildings and the population. I would like to know how much military targets are still up after 18 days of an average (CNN source) of 2,000 bombs per night. So, please, let's get rid of this "precision weapons" matter. The same I would like about "the civilian casualties are mostly due to Saddam". Let's not joke about it, please. I mean, you say that you see this war as a necessary evil, and you're completely entitled to this opinion. But you simply have to confront the fact, sad and in many ways horrible, that the attackers are killing hundreds and hundreds of the same people they pretend to be protecting and/or liberating. Saddam's not Hitler. He's an asshole, a mean asshole, a ferocious dictator like there are, unluckily, lots and lots in the world (and lots of them are where they are because of US covert or sometimes blatant support). The UN sanctions resulted in lots and lots of poor people dying. And in the further rising of the power of Saddam Hussein. He has no WMDs, you're almost in Baghdad and didn't find anything of such. The UN inspectors were saying that they didn't find any evidence of WMDs. So, let's say that I don't like US because I think (it's an example, not what I think should be done in reality, ok?) that death penalty is (and it is) against human rights convention. This entitles me to invade and attack USofA because "I don't want to leave them to my sons and daughters"? I hope not. I strongly hope not. Nobody but the UN (and sometimes not even them, with this ridiculous "veto-power" of 5 nations) could eventually decide such a thing. And it's not even a war against terrorism. Saddam Hussein is the most hated islamic President among all the Al-Qaeda leaders. Because he's not a fundamentalist. He's mostly a ferocious egomaniac, but his prime minister is Christian (Tareq Aziz) and Iraq has freedom of cult (many Catholic bishops are in there, a thing only "tolerated" _ and badly _ by a great ally of the US, Saudi Arabia, where _ for example _ women that aren't married can't go out of house without a man accompanying them _ something that in Iraq doesn't exist, not even by far). So, why? Why one of our fellow artists (and surely others) has to be in the desert fighting for what, until now, seems in the eyes of the whole world a colossal lie? This is a very strong question, and I really don't have an answer. This said, I subscribe completely your hope and wish that the troops will come home safely. And all my regards and thoughts to richnovak, that _ or so I understand _ is writing from the theater of operations. I won't make the mistake of confounding the behavior of US govt with the feelings of US people and, specially, with the feelings of those who are there to fight in something they think is right. All my best, Stefano