No WMD's in Iraq ... So?

There was ZERO justification for going into Iraq. Even if Saddam had nukes, there was no ethical justification for a military invasion and conquest of a sovereign power. Only if Saddam had launched nukes on our soil would we be justified in taking military violence to Iraq.

Sorry.

The justification for going into Iraq is American imperial meddlism. America feels the need (and the "right") to dictate international morality, and to police the planet. America is not only unqualified for this function, there is no moral justification for this.

Is the world a better place without Hussein in power? No. Iraq may be a better place, but the only positive global impact of the conquest is placing a focal point for terroristic actions AWAY from American (and western) territories.

Would I support sending special forces in for surgical strikes against strategic targets? Yep. I am not opposed to "surgical" opposition to serious dangerous intent. I was a big fan of the old TV series "Mission: Impossible" where clever operatives found ways to remove threats from power. I was hoping someone with a sliver of imagination and historical perspective would resurrect the concept of Letters of Marque, licensing private security organizations, bounty hunters ... hell, even big game hunters ... to go abroad and wage unconventional war on tumorous persons and organizations bent on bringing death to our people.

But a government-sanctioned military invasion and occupation ... wrong in intangible areas of ethics, and wrong in the very tangible areas of practical effect (cost in lives, costs in global reputation, costs in dollars, etc.)