Exactly. Like it takes some sort of central command to launch suicide car bomb attacks.

A slight correction here - The attacks I chose to highlight did actually take place "several hours before" it was announced that Saddam had been captured. I'm not sure if the first reports that I read were wrong or (more likely) I was just confused by the time difference.

That said, we know that violence and American casualities aren't coming to a sudden end.

I worried the same way when Bush visited the troops for Thanksgiving, as if he was the good guy. Plea to the American public: Please, please, please, don't let this man steal another term.

Just because they finally caught the guy still doesn't mean it was imperative that we went over there when we did. When they get around to finding bin Laden, then they'll have something to crow about.

I dug the Dusty Rhodes look; or was he going more for The Unabomber?

I am about to become very unpopular with your group. I supported Bush in the fight in Iraq. I just wish that the word got out about the other reason we are there. All we heard about was the WMD not the human right violations his goverment was responible for. Never mind the fact we sit here in a very public protest about this war. When all the goverment is trying to do is give them the same freedom we enjoy over here. The election was three years ago. Gore lost get over it. I did. We don't need to be everywhere in the world, but when families are lost to a horrible death like torture and we do nothing to stop them we are just has guilty has those who comit the crime, or did we learn nothing when the Nazis were allowed to nearly wipe out the Jewish faith because the world did nothing but watch. I know I am in the minority here, but the other side of the story needs to be told.

Oh, I thought you were gonna say that you liked Dave Matthews.

Okay, I'll play along for a second (but only a second). Using the Simmons Doctrine, where do you draw the line? Where next? North Korea? Iran? Syria? China? Nigeria? Côte d’Ivoire? Uzbekistan? Sudan? Columbia? Guatemala? I'll stop now. I think you get the point.

In fact, Human Rights Watch thinks what we're doing is deplorable.

In addition, need I remind you that our rationale for aggression as presented to the U.N. was entirely based upon the overwhelming presence of WMD. I don't think I need to explain that. The HRV issue was a creative spin when it was clear that WMD weren't hidden in every bunker and in every backpack as we had been, well, lead to believe by our "president."

Saddam was a brutal dictator. I'm not dumb enough to try to deny that. However, where do we draw the line? When do we cause more harm than good? I offer that this is a vivid illustration of a disaster created by aggression with no planning.

And I feel obligated to respond to your Hitler analogy which, on its face, is pretty silly. To compare the power of the Third Reich to a rag-tag army is pretty laughable.

As Seumas Milne writes in The Guardian...

The parallel between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Nazi Germany is transparently ridiculous. In the late 1930s, Hitler's Germany was the world's second largest industrial economy and commanded its most powerful military machine. It openly espoused an ideology of territorial expansion, had annexed the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession and posed a direct threat to its neighbours. It would go on to enslave most of Europe and carry out an industrial genocide unparallelled in human history.

Iraq is, by contrast, a broken-backed developing country, with a single commodity economy and a devastated infrastructure, which doesn't even control all its own territory and has posed no credible threat to its neighbours, let alone Britain or the US, for more than a decade. Whatever residual chemical or biological weapons Iraq may retain (MRW - This was written in February. It is now clear that they have NONE), they are clearly no deterrent, its armed forces have been massively weakened and face the most powerful military force in history - Iraq's military spending is estimated to be about one per cent of the US's $380bn budget. The attempt to equate the Iraqis' horrific gas attacks on Kurds and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war with the Nazi holocaust is particularly grotesque - a better analogy would be the British gassing of Iraqi Kurds in the 20s or the US use of chemical weapons in Vietnam.

I asked a WWII Vet, who lives on my street, what he thought of this war not too long ago. He said, "This isn't a war. It's politics."

He's one smart old GI.

Sing it: Here Comes President Kill Again.

I knew I would unpopular. I guess the long and the short of it is we should we stay or should go? We can debate should we have, but the facts do not change we are there. Do we have an obligation to stay? I say yes. We started it we need to finish it. We pull out now we will have done more harm then good. We need to encourage our government to finish the job right not just half way.

I didn't argue that we should immediately flee now. That wasn't my point at all. Do I think we should be there? Hell no. Do I think that we should just turn-tail and create a giant vacuum which could very well create a worse situation than when we first arrived? Probably not. Like I said, we've no planning. No exit strategy. No strategy period. We've mucked up something that we shouldn't even be involved in.