Yes this is an interesting discussion every one appears to agree that Saddam is not going to win a peace prize for human rights but as soon as some one questions the reasons for military action against Iraq they are a bed wetting, peace loving, wimp.
It would appear that Bush and Blair are the only world leaders who beleive Iraq is building stock piles of weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism. Most other world leaders are not convinced and even Howards support is weakening. Most opinions of experts in this area that I have heard and read back Ritter's claim in the original post that Iraq does not have large quantities of weapons of mass destruction and that there is if any only superficial support of terroist organisations.
If Bush wants wider support for military action he needs to produce some form of proof not just rhetoric. Other wise the rest of the world is going to see it for what it appears to be - the US protecting oil supplies and forcing its will on other countries.
As for the human rights argument - Bush could not give a rats rear end about the Iraq people. Saddam is no saint but if Bush wants to be a world crusader for human rights there are a lot of other countries that would be in need for more urgent attention than Iraq but these countries are not rich in oil.
If there is proof for backing military action fine send in the troops but provided some decent proof first. Without out this the US risks stating something they may regret. PS jimjj your are entiled to your point of view but you should not beleive everything the US tells you
There is a saying something about speaking softly but carryiong a big stick - a big mouth does not make a big man.
