Point well made but I have also seen some very very horrible pictures of the results of the last gulf war also. Naturally they were censored at the time and only authorised journalists were allowed in. To dissatisfy the military is to loose authorisation and to be censored.

It seems unlikely to me that occupying forces would make as much of any effort to rebuild Iraq as they will to bomb it. When there's poverty and starvation (which, yes, there is also now, cause of sanctions which some argue could be lifted following regime-change) there's desparation and surely that's conducive to terrorist causes.

Also people seem to be missing the point that killing a whole heap of soldiers, whilst considered "legitimate" military practice is pretty horrible. No political purge is likely to have the same death toll as the destruction of a whole army. What I should like to know is "Is sadam's army conscripted?", I believe this is likely because in the Iran-Iraq war he sent children over mine-fields to clear them for his elite troops, this isn't something I can imagine kids doing by choice. Are the army to be fought willingly fighting for Sadam's regime or just folk like you and I who would rather not bloody their hands? I heard that troops surendered readily in the last war. 60% of the population of Iraq is Sunni Muslim, Sadam's ba'athist party is secular and supposedly socialist. This means 60% probably don't support him, maybe this is an argument for regime change also.

A subsidiary note: US female protesters would appear to be cuter than ours.