We would never agree here.
When I read Maya's post (Kettercat) I idmediatly thought of our own case. on 1970 we were the first cuntry to elect a Marxist President, Salvador Allende, and 3 years later, there was a 'civil war' [a 'golpe militar' really] and a dictator came to power, Augusto Pinochet. I'm not old enough to have lived there, on the 1970's, but I always ask my father and he says the atmosphere was bad; Allende had a very bad goverment, but it was all increased by the U.S.A. They blocked us, and their allies blocked us too; they worked very hard, they armed the army [they gave them more weapons], they killed the General in charge of the army (because he had socialist tendency) and they plotted, with the army, the 'goldpe de estado' [when a president is derrocated by the use of force] Life was bad, but it didn't got any better. We growth economicly, the banned dissapeared and we were suddenly a 'free country', as they said, but it was not really like that. We had a dictator, a hard one, for 18 years, and the U.S.A never said a thing, in fact, they helped him.
That's why I don't believe when they say that they were doing that for the people's own good [iraquis]. They derrocated Saddam, yes they did, but Iraquis still have a dictartorship, it's just the rules has change; instead of being Saddam it's the 'coalition forces' lead by the U.S.A goverment.
I didn't liked Saddam either. But I still think it was not the right thing to do. He had to be taken out of power, and long before I think, but what happened as just not right. I can't remember who, but someone said that If they had day said like "We made a mistake, and will try to fixed it..." and so, I would be much more supportive than I am now. The reasons they agve were lame, that's why I think this war was unjustified.