The two groups that support or are against the invasion of Iraq, like to argue back and forth between one another as to who's right about the situation, but in my opinion one side of the debate is never going to convince the other side that they are right and that the other side is wrong until the whole thing plays out sometime down the road from now. Its either going to take Iraq being a total failure or a budding democracy to convince the other side whether it was wrong or not.
The moral compass of the two sides in the debate, are just set differently than the other, and once ones moral compass makes a decision for you, its very difficult to change it. A person's core beliefs is the very foundation of their being and are usually set in stone. Making it very difficult for the two sides to agree on anything.
One group thinks that its immoral to invade a country without a very good reason to do so or are against war for any reason at all, therefor are against the invasion of Iraq. The other group tends to think that its immoral to stand aside and do nothing while a tyrant abuses and controls his population by using fear and/or force to do so.
Its just a person's make up that decides whether or not they support regime change in Iraq or not, its not because they are stupid or a moron, although there are a few on both sides of the argument, its because they truly believe they are right.
But somewhere down the road we'll all know who was right and who was wrong, but until then, both sides should keep on making their cases, this will provide the side of the argument that was right with plenty of ammunition to burn them with when this is all over. The only two things I hope for is that Iraqis will benefit from America's decision, and Gywnne Dyer is going to be wrong, as usual.