So you would have supported the effort if the UN orchestrated it and if the explicit reason was to remove a tyrannical dictator committing human rights atrocities?

I don't know what international law has to say about this, but, in my mind, it doesn't matter. Yes. I would have totally supported the war (other than your general ``War is Hell'' ideology) if it had been orchestrated by the UN in reference to human rights and other countries had signed on for it. I realize I've said little here to that point, but that's the case. I supported the attack on Afghanistan, even, until it turned out to be a ``we're going to remove this government and do little else about ensuring peace'' fiasco. For that, I even somewhat supported the US going alone (before the fiasco part), although I thought it would have been good to at least acknowledge the offers of the international community. There would still be issues with a war, as Iraq was one of the very few secularly governed states in the Middle East, and, as far as terrorism goes, the religious states seem to be of bigger concern. I think it would be hard under any circumstance to establish a new secular government in Iraq, but I think the route the US has taken makes it especially hard.

My main problem with the war on Iraq is that the Bush administration obviously used the whole terrorism thing to get backing for his pet war. (I have as big a problem with them using it to erode personal rights within the US, but that's a different thread.)

However, as [censored] pointed out, the UN once again proved themselves to be toothless. I don't understand why they can get behind sending large numbers of troops to Yugoslavia but not to Iraq. I hate the fact that the UN seems unable to do anything, but, for now, it's the best we've got. Maybe it's time to dissolve it and form a new international body. Of course, the last time an international governing body dissolved World War II happened.