"I must strongly disagree. His acts of cruelty, oppression and deceit are our moral justification for removing him----and your assertion that diplomacy would have worked is not backed by any fact. Twelve years of diplomacy accomplished nothing---let me remind you that it was our deployment of overwhelming force that led to reinstatement of "inspectors". I use that word very lightly because Blix in my opinion was Saddams puppet."
I was merely saying that our level of hatred for the guy shouldn't influence our method to remove him. Otherwise it would be a war of emotion over objectives.
The trouble is that the diplomacy used was at either extreme - we were either asking him to pretty please let people come and make sure everything was lawful, or we were illegally blowing it all up. There Must have been some middle ground where we could have at least only threatened war if he refused to answer some questions. And no, threatening war if he doesn't leave cannot count. Can any of us imagine what'd happen if the countries of the world ordered Bush out or we'd attack?
"You and the world have based your judgement on his verbal inadequacies on the world stage"
Not at all. We just use those moments to humiliate him. I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect the most powerful man on earth to be able to express himself, since PR is part of the job. I did however mean his actions were ludicrus.
He fixes the election, he removes all reprisentatives from the Israel peace talks, he walks out of the Kyoto treaty, he breaks the Ballistics Treaty with the Star Wars program, he wages war on Iraq against the will of the UN and majority of the world, and he doesn't instigate a police force in Iraq, causing the destruction of billions of pounds worth of Muslim, archaeological and historical treasures.
An example of where what he says can cause problems though would be when he was prompted about whether the anti-terrorist actoins were anti-muslim. He replied:
"It is a crusade against terrorism"