FoolThemAll

Not a fan of Rosa Parks, eh?

Laws do not encompass all that is right and rational. Sometimes - often? - they are in direct opposition to the correct course of action.

Saddam was bad for Iraq. He was a murderous tyrant.

That's not enough to cap the discussion, of course. We can still argue the extent to which the U.S. should get involved in the domestic problems of other countries. We can still argue whether Saddam actually posed any threat to the U.S. (and you're obviously ready for that argument). We can still argue about the questionable tactics - lies? - used to promote the war. And most importantly in my view, we can definitely argue about the cure and whether or not it became worse than the problem.

But that good reason remains, and I'm not seeing how your mountains of article citations can erase it.

(Fwiw, I'll be an interested spectator on this discussion of the war's winnability, as I'm probably not currently 'reliably informed'.)

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.