you know although i am anti-war i understand both sides of the argument fairly well, saddam is an evil evil man (funded by the american gov. for most of his political career), he massacared thousands of kurds (sorry uprising or not, no excuse, but we did sell him those chemicals).
My big problems with all of this are as follows:
to believe that our intentions are good is just naive at this point, to put such a focus on not burning oil fields and to have the first oil company (cheneys former company if i understand correctly) in iraq run by one of cheneys good buddys basicaly snuffs out the debate as to whether oil has anything to do with this. and besides how often do politicians do anything with he best intentions? Why should this be any different?
also as ridiculous as the argument that its a personal vendeta sounds i believe it does play into it. bush is just human, and a rather emotional one at that, if someone plotted to kill your father you'd be pissed to.
and their were alternatives, but bush was on a time line he wanted to go to war and take sadam out he didnt want to play games (which is to an extent admirable but employed at the wrong time)
to say that sadam would give WMD (weapons of mass destruction for the uninformed) to osama or any other extremest islamic group is just not logical. Sadam may be crazy but hes predictable, and smart. muslim extremests hate sadam as well and have attacked his country and interests, why would he risk someone turning his own weapons against him (which would be much easier than trying to smuggle them into the US)
Sadam would never put his power at risk, hell do whatever it takes to keep it, even if it meant slowly and unwillingly disarming.

so thats my little rant, maybe you feel im misguided feel free to let me know. Ill probably have more ranting to add. but if you start spouting vile and ignorance (for either view) i will let you know in very harsh terms.