[dbcooper]

Exactly I think they would freak, and that is why we should have kept our attention on one target at a time then move on. You can still have counter intelligent forces do their thing in these locations but I don't think we should have opened up another front before finishing the first. This isn't on the scale of Hitler and WWII but look at his mistakes he could have had all of Europe and actually the US probably wouldn't have entered the European conflict but he kept expanding his front and making himself thinner and thinner.

Hitler would've eventually been countered no matter what. The U.S. simply would not have permitted total domination of Europe by him.

I agree that starting Barbarossa when he did cost him a potential victory over Britain, but with Churchill in leadership rather than Neville, Sea Lion would've been a a bloody marsh fight and the U.S. would've intervened quicker than waiting to land in North Africa in '42.

Besides, the error people make in equating Hussein with Hitler is that with Hitler you had a preceding veneer of cooperative diplomacy and treaties leading up to '39. With Hussein it was simply aggression from the outset.

At first it was aggression that served our purposes (against Iran, deemed a bigger threat in the first half of the 80s) and then it was aggression that legitimately threatened our interests as well as those of the western world.

It does not matter one scintilla that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Not one. The invasion was justifiable on the premise of multi-level acts of aggression against the U.S., against the Gulf States, violations of multiple UN Resolutions which required forcible response and, really, common sense.

How much sense did it make to sit and wait on a provably aggressive, unstable man sit in the midst of the world's most sensitive fuel reserve resource with the potential to disrupt it all, really?

He was a fascist, a murdering pig, a thug and the world is better off rid of him.