Also I don't think that a moral opposition to the death penalty is necessarily a left wing position. A liberal one certainly. It should not be used on an industrial scale against the working class / black population as is the case in the USA. Best used sparingly, if at all.
First of all there's the 'might'.
- Saddam might have choked on his food.
- Saddam might have had an aneurysm
- Saddam may have discovered mystical powers and ascended to the godhead.
- Saddam and his cabinet may all have spontaneously combusted.
- Saddam and his sons may have been hit by lightning on a trip to the seaside.
Secondly there is the moral problem with justifying a war based on what 'might have' happened. By that logic every conflict can be justified.
- 911 is morally justified as it hastened the decline of an American empire responsible for the deaths of millions.
- WWII was justified as the USSR might have invaded and enslaved Europe.
- Kurdish Genocide was justified as they may have sparked a much more murderous civil war in Iraq.
It is the worst kind of sophistry. A self serving, amoral and utterly ludicrous argument.
Droid, your opposition to the war is based on what might have happened had we not invaded.
I think a Syria style situation is more likely than some of the "mights" you suggested.
The Crime of Aggression is the crime of planning, initiation or execution of an act of aggression by a person in a position to exercise control over the political or military action of a State where the character, gravity and scale of such an act of aggression constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations. An act of aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Acts of aggression include invasion, military occupation, annexation by the use of force, bombardment, and military blockade of ports.