I think Bush believed his decision was right; he was mistaken as was virtually everyone on the planet about whether bad stuff was there. (Here is my shameless plug for myself: http://www.worldmonitor.info/chron/sep2002.html http://www.worldmonitor.info/chron/oct2004.html)

I was in favor of containment of Iraq from day 1. After 9/11 I thought we should concentrate on al Qaeda; when I started hearing rumblings in early 2002 about going after Saddam I was incredulous that we would go off on that tangent (no offense to those who disagree )

Why contain him if we believed he had bad stuff? Because as Christians we should trust God and only resort to war when we have no choice. War plays into the enemy's hands, whipping up more hatred between us and other nations. As someone else said, fear is not a good motivation for making decisions. Perfect love drives out fear. Being in a situation where we could strike out of fear, and not doing so, but rather being restrained to the utmost, tolerating a greater degree of risk, and loving and praying for our enemies is a way for us to vividly demonstrate to the world that there is a God and that we know him. "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?" (Matthew 5:43-48)

I, too, trusted Colin Powell–he did make a convincing case, I remember the taped recordings of Iraqi government officials and the mobile-chem labs they had satellite intelligence on. I remember thinking that the time between that UN meeting and when the bombing actually began was way too long a time, I was worried about Saddam smuggling the mobile chem-labs out of the country.

Only much later, after I had moved away from North Carolina and started to develop my own life-philosophy and begin working on my own ideas did I begin to think we had committed a horrible mistake.

Christian: Great answer! Thanks for it.

To … babble further: I was never "for" the war. What sane person is ever FOR war? I just thought Powell's case that Hussein was going to go Hitler was so compelling that after his testimony, for the first time I found myself thinking that maybe we should forcibly stop Hussein. If history teaches us anything, it's that we should never wait to see what'll happen next once a madman with power has made his intentions clear. Powell told us that Hussein was a madman with power intent on aggression. What else CAN you do in a case like that but fight. We're the big, strong kid on the playground. It's up to us to make sure the littler kids are protected.

I'm not anti- or pro- war. I'm anti or pro CAUSE–which of course depends on the cause in question. Some things are worth fighting for. Some aren't. Fighting, as Powell told us we would be, so that Hussein wouldn't mustard gas or bomb thousands of innocent people seemed to me like something worth fighting for. Fighting so that Bush and Cheney can think they have fourteen-inch wangs isn't. (Not that THAT'S why we're in Iraq, or anything. I'm just saying that if that if that was why we were in Iraq, it wouldn't be a good enough reason. But I know we're in Iraq for a whole bunch of reasons.)

Sam: Honestly, what prompted the posting was that I was listening to Crosy, Still, Nash and Young's album, "So Far." And I kept thinking, Whatever happened to the anti-war movement? When it became clear that the entire reason we were told we had to go to war was wrong, I thought people would pour into the streets, that everyone, everywhere, would demand that we pull out of Iraq.

But, of course, we can't. Now everyone knows that pulling out of Iraq would cause more violence than we cause by being there. Now all we can do is wait, and watch, and wonder what in God's name happened.

I back your view that war is bad and their are atrocities on both sides, but unlike you I held a different view until recently. I didn't quite get the value of every life and the God cares for each of us – even an Al Queda trying to kill me or my family.

When I was in the military I liked to repeat the motto of "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out." This came just after the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut.

The key point to John's blog is that Colin Powell convinced quite a few people that Saddam Hussein was a real threat to we Americans, our allies and our national interests.

With that perceived threat, as to a murderous terrorist, many were quick to respond with "hey, we should defend ourselves."

The key response I had after reading this blog entry was should be 1) should we be so quick to rush to judgment? Shouldn't we count the cost of any action including inaction? and 2) should we use our critical thinking skills to evaluate whatever we are told no matter how credible we believe the source to be? This would help us to better evaluate the cost.

But that was just me the secularized American "Christian" citizen talking. I hadn't 'converted' yet when we had begun the offensive. Even so, I probably would've been supportive in a more Religious Right style of patriotism. But now I think it is a shame. This conflict is one of a continuing series of battles that began before World War I. During WWII the Allies tore these countries apart, ravaging their holy cities and towns and essentially thought nothing more of them than cattle. We destroyed their second holiest city, Medina. And their only offense? They had been colonized. Is there any wonder that so many despise us?

What if we would try Ghandi's approach to dealing with our adversaries? Would we spend any more money? Could there be any greater loss of life? Why is it that Christians have yet to seize the moral high ground?