Saddam Hussein obviously WAS a bad man. But my point is that you have to be extremely careful about setting precedents, and if you do start setting precedents then you have to continue down that road, removing the likes of Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il. In no time at all you are starting wars all over the place, other countries are piling in on either side in support of their allies, someone decides to cut the Gordian knot using a nuclear bomb, end of story. That is not how foreign policy works, as history shows. If we don't learn the lessons of history...you know how it goes. Bad rulers have to be left for their own people to get rid of. Those people can be encouraged, they can be supported once they've done the deed, and so on. But you can't have foreign countries marching in to effect regime change on a whim.
Of course this all presupposes that 'removing a bad ruler', as argued by many hawks, was them telling the truth. A basic flaw in my argument, very clearly.
The Bush admin definitely went there to get rid of Hussein, but not because they actually gave a toss about the Iraqi people or imaginary WMD. Problem is they didn't have a fucking clue who or what they were going to replace him with, or how to do it, hence the ensuing mess.
Where there are stong enough allies, or 'client states' involved, any military intervention or attempt at regime change has the potential to get very messy. I remember shitting bricks when the Russians turned up in Bosnia...