ok-i can't say i thought it was absolutely vital that we invade iraq, nor can i say you'd be considered outstanding in any way in a classroom of 8th graders in say, your average indian reservation.

how the fuck is there anything intrinsically evil or immoral about removing someone whose legitamacy comes through fear and brutality the way that saddam's did?
the fucker gassed kurds, fished with dynamite, tended towards self-deification, named a son "uday", and tortured his soccer team for losing. being a fierce, warlike leader is one thing--not having the ability to morally discriminate between the people you lead and the enemy is rare-saddam had it, are you denying that paranoia and torture were standard practice there? ambiguity towards doing fucked up shit to those closest to you is the absolute worst trait in a leader, stop cruising around on your brainstem and think about who else profiles like the guy and how you'd feel getting ripped out of bed and having the fuck tortured out of you because someone dropped a dime on you for putting up a lawn flamingo and now you're a subversive and get to die in a secret prison.
was it the most pressing thing in national history to do? probably not. but to equate necessity with virtue of action isn't evil and makes you a dumb fuck.