I think you missed the point I was making about taking out Saddam. Though any 100% hard figures may prove to be impossible to calculate, current estimates on how many deaths should be attributed to him range between 300,000 and 1.5 million.
One and a half million men, women and children. I hope you get the point I was making now.
I believe you are mistaken, Brimmy-poo. After doing an hours worth of extensive research I could find nothing to back up what you are saying with this claim. However, I did find something similar...
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp
It seems that it was not Saddam who had killed 300,000 - 1,500,000 people, but rather U.N. Sanctions against him, oh wait let me rephrase that, U.N. sanctions against his people.
Saddam did kill people, but those deaths were more along the line of 100 here, 200 there, with one sticking out at around 5,000. Nothing comes near the 100,000 mark though. Sorry Brimmy but all information I have looked shows that our war has caused more citizen death than Saddam ever intentionally caused.
Since when does a news organization have the power or authority to declare a civil war? And you have problems with our goverment having too much power!
There's a couple ways I can answer this question:
1. Since they can obviously put 2 and 2 together and declare it rightly so. Even Tony Snow, in his idiocy, at trying to claim this was not a civil war practically spelled out the definition of the word that would practically be synonymous with the situation in Iraq.
2. Since they have the power to declare which person will win the presidency, as they did in 2000, when it was obiously clear that the recount was not yet finished and it could have swung either way. (but lets not get into that whole thing again)
As far as the Allies taking Palastinian land after WWII, remember that the Palestine, as well as many other middle-eastern countries, allied themselves with Hitler and the Nazis due to their mutual hatred of Jews (mind you, prior to the formation of Israel). They lost. We took the land. That's what they call "the spoils of war." It may not be the best thing, but it happens after every major war.
Wow, huge flaw in this theory Brimmy.
First off a lot of countries took sides in WWII, but not every country fought in WWII. I Do not recall there being ANY Palestinian troops in Europe fighting alongside Italians and Germans.
Second how can we justify they stealing of land by a country that had no direct involvement in WWII, and then turn around and repair, renew, and revitalize the 3 main Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan) and give it right back to them? (East Germany aside) Where is the logic in that? I can just imagine the conversation...
"Oh hey guys...look, this tiny country down here...Pale-whosits, ya them, they said they like the Germans"
"Well then lets take their land and give it to another religion for the next 100 years, that will teach em who to like or not."
"Oh what about these 3 countries, Germany, Italy, and Japan?"
"What? Oh I don't know. Fix em up and give it back to their own government, thatll teach em to invade foriegn countries and slaughter over 6 million people"
Complete idiocy...
Also, you have to understand that though we consider hezbollah a terrorist organization, they are in fact the Palestinian military. And as a military tactic, they launch rockets into Israel FROM civilian cites. Irael isn't trying to hit hezbollah, but rather the rocket sites from which they are attacking. This is not an act of terrorism, but an act of war. Of course, this is pointless in the long run, since they'll just get more rockets/launchers from syria and others.
Have you read exactly what we consider a terrorist group these days? In fuckin rediculous. Thankfully, a federal judge yesterday overturned Bush's right to declare whatever he wants a terrorist organization and thereby removing a couple "enemies of that state" off our list.
Also I am not defending Hezbollah, I believe they were as much of the problem as Israel was, but REGARDLESS they were firing rockets into civilian (sometimes schools) cities in Lebanon, a third party altogether in that little debacle. And are you telling me that the worlds "second best military force", your words not mine, can't go directly into where the problem is and flush it out that way with little to no civilian casualties? Why would they have to fling rockets back at them when they KNEW it was a civilian city. Because just like a lot of Muslims in that area hate the Jewish people and want to wipe them out, I am damn sure that Israel hates the Muslims and would have no problem with wiping them all out.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Israel isn't just sitting on Muslim holy land, but Jewish and Christian holy land as well. Also, you're probably not aware of the fact that anything within about 10 miles of a mosque (if I'm spelling that correctly) is considered holy land by Muslims. There is, by that logic, quite a lot of Muslim holy land here in America.
The Muslims took it back from the Jewish and Christians thousands of years ago in a time where land and religion meant everything. It was barbaric. So are you saying that today we are no better than how we were back then? Wow, amazing.
Should we give that "back" to them as well?
This is a loaded question (look it up if you dont know what it means) I refuse to answer it because it will make my argument look bad no matter if I agree or disagree to it. I've grown wise to your tricks Brimmy. 
"We are a mass of seething fury, elected as your judge and jury. You stand accused of murder, vanity, and evil crimes against humanity."-Andy Martin
At any rate, let's save the rest of the arguement for the next topic. At least it will keep things fun!