Not what you said? Whose quote is that, anyway?

Claiming that we can only depose Saddam if we then depose every other tyrant is a utopian line of thinking.

It may be somewhat closer to the mark to suggest that it's a nifty way to set the bar so high that the party of defeat wraps another one up.

Michael, you do a diservice to all those people who risked their lives to vote in an authentic plebiscite to freely elect representatives for the first time in their history when you compare it to the sham elections in which Saddam Hussein routinely received 100% of the vote.

Perhaps, but I wasn't out to make the Iraqi people feel good or bad. The fact remains that having an election, even a free and fair election, doesn't mean they have a democracy.

They attacked us

Who attacked us? Certainly not Iraq. If you are suing "they attacked us" as a measure, we would have been more correct to invade Saudi Arabia...

I am always fascinated by those like Hal. The left prides itself on its exquisite sense of nuance but then makes hamfisted arguments like Hal's.
The reason Iraq is "worth it" is its strategic and cultural value in the war against militant Islam. While places like Darfur or Zimbabwe may be "worth it" on one scale, Iraq is "worth it" on several scales. We are not fighting Mugabe, a fairly garden-variety totalitarian thug. We are not fighting the janjaweed, a particularly brutal and ugly group of genocidal bastards.
If only we could be everywhere and right all wrongs! We can't. We must pick our fights.
Which brings us to Iraq. Saddam, another totalitarian thug, was flaunting UN resolutions dating to the first gulf war, known to have used WMD on his own people, suspected by virtually all Western intelligence agencies of having on-going WMD programs (BTW, did Hal see we recently transshipped 500+ TONS of yellowcake found in Iraq?) and known to support international terrorism, was a high potential target.
In addition, the prospect of establishing a US ally in the heart of the historic caliphate, in the heart of Islam, as a modern, oil-rich, democratic counterpoise to the blandishments of a medieval Islam, made Iraq an object desirable far beyond other potential targets for US attention. There were reasons aplenty for deposing Saddam and the potential benefits were enormous. Iraq as a modern, moderate, democratic state is a dagger in the heart of Bin Laden-istic Islam.
In the times following 9/11, we were not seeking to right the ills of the world, as worthy as that ambition might be, we were seeking to fight the rise of a murderous, jihadistic vision of Islam that had attacked us on our own soil, killed thousands, and openly threatened to destroy us.
They attacked us and we retaliated in a way that was calculated to attack their psychological center of gravity, as they did to us on 9/11. Sometimes it is is as simple and elemental as that. It boils down to survival and you have to do what you have to do. Iraq was/is a high value target in the long term, strategic approach to the war against Islamo-fascism.
Just trying to help out the nuance-challenged.

In fact, it's exceedingly common, so much so that it can reasonably be regarded as the natural endstate of all modern societies. Japan, Germany, S Korea, Taiwan, just about all of South and Central America, a dozen countries in E Europe... even when countries like Thailand or Pakistan undergo military coup, they typically restore democracy shortly after.

Well, China is still very poor -- poorer than Mexico -- and is liberalizing rapidly as they develop. There are now local elections and property rights are increasingly secure.

One of the lessons of China, which seems to be ignored, is the shattering of the myth that capitalism and teh market create democracy. We now seem to have a rather large and prosperous economy (which pretty much owns our national debt, from what I can tell) which hasn't produced the democracy many were sure would follow. Likewise in Iraq, the underlying theory seems to have been that if we simply give people the chance, they'll choose our way of life in a heart beat.

This isn't to say that Iraq, or China or anyone else is "incapable" of democracy. It's just that democracy (or a republic for the anal retentive) is exceedingly rare.

One of the fundamental issues I've had with the war supporters is their fantasy that western style democracy is something trivial to bring about. In the extreme, such an attitude cheapens what we've accomplished here in this country. At at a minimum it's simply incredibly naive regarding human history and how incredibly lucky the USA has been.

Iraq sits on some of the oldest civilized territory on the planet

True, and it has been authoritarian for all that time. We cannot expect people to become like us simply because we wish them to. They have their own culture and their own ways of life. Simply sending in the army and deposing their government is not going to turn them into Sweden.

We should not get too confident about winning either the war or the peace. At some point, we have to leave. Yugoslavia teaches us a lesson about what holds polyglot nations together. An iron hand. Remove the iron hand, and the nation will tend to fly apart.

Um, where the f did I do that? You are being completely delusional.

You can have the last word by replying because I am through trying to reason with you.

Well, if you would start trying to reason you could quit. But seeing as how you're ascribing statements to me that I haven't even made, I'm not sure I'd classify that as "reasoning".

Perfectly willing to discuss it, but seeing as how you've stomped off...

I did ask whether you preferred that Saddam was still in power, since you seem to twice infer that you do, but I will do you the courtesy of asking again rather than claiming you wrote it and acting self righteous and indignant.

Your apparent willful attempt to equivocate Saddam's sham elections and the first free elections in Iraq is pitiful. You should be ashamed. Make an effort. You may find it is worth it.

You can have the last word by replying because I am through trying to reason with you.

Normally I do not chat but as you seem rational and open to information?

1) I do not at this time suggest a more aggressive bombing strategy in Iraq as our current arms seem sufficient.

(As in all wars, the weapons must adapt with the terrain.) But that said - war continues until one side wins. I think that we have won the major battles, and are ( short of sabotage ) set to win the entire war. And the peace.

2) As to the 'time'?
a) 88 years is still longer than German had
and
b) I was referencing the *culture*. The names have changed, as have the structures ( tribal vs. congressional ) but the city-states of Ur and Sumner and Babylon had laws and governments when Europe had wandering tribes.

Iraq is not some primitive, ignorant backwater. Iraq sits on some of the oldest civilized territory on the planet. If any people are capable of self-government, who better than them?