.
to find out, eg "Did WMD exist", "Why did we think so", "Who told whom about what", "who didn't tell about what" etc etc, but at the end of the day, the justification for going to war will prevail, despite some "moving of goal posts" no doubt.
But what I want to know, is why it was necessary to proceed with quite such force? I simply don't understand how flattening buildings with such disastrous effects on the infrastructure can have been expected to remove this perceived threat.
It's just my opinion, but debate still continues in the UK about the validity of its saturation bombing of Dresden during the second world war and concomitent result on its inhabitants. Surely we should have moved on from that tactic in this technological age?How is Iraq different? Especially since bombs hardly penetrate underground locations.
Regards
Mo

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic