[John Feeney]

"Guys like Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic can only be removed by force."

Why would you say something like that as if it were an established fact?

One of the most glaring facts, to me, is that, relative to the most conventional political steps, precious little has been invested in money, man power, or other resources, toward investigating alternative methods to solve these problems, including getting Saddam out of power.

"How could anyone be for removing Milosevic yet be against deposing Saddam?"

I don't know if anyone is. I'm not against it. i just don't agree that we've come anywhere near exhausting our attempts to do so through means other than war. That may require some new ideas. And it appears our investigation and development of new alternatives to war has been nearly nonexistent.

"It seems the entire Left is rallying to defend the cause of this tyrant, as they do for many tyrants."

I think you know better than that.

"The coming war will probably kill fewer Iraqis than Saddam would manage to kill on his own over the next few years. The war will probably be over fast--very fast."

As might the "something else," which we can't even identify because we haven't bothered to develop it.

Why do some folks assume that because a problem is very difficult, and involves someone who rules by force, the only way to solve it is through war? Don't you guys kind of think humankind might do well to work toward ending war? I mean, we've made a little progress in other areas over the centuries. I think we're lagging in the conflict resolution department. Are you going to say, "Yeah, sure, just not right now"?

(This serves as my response to Jimbo as well.)