I think I've figured out where you've been wondering astray on this thread.
First off, I won the only thing that matters and that was doing my duty and having a part in bringing justice to someone not worthy of being in the Coast Guard. And yes, I won big time and he lost VERY BIG TIME.
As for you and your so-called arguments...well, how can I say this politely? You and your opinion are irrelevent to the issue.
Arguments from the defenders of Saddam and Sons, are those who depended entirely on the predictability of a madman, with billions for wmd, the science, the capability, and the M.O. to use or export them.
They are those who believed in the immoral policy of containment that was unsustainable, and consigned millions to tyranny for decades.
They believed that a man, who until a year ago affected every fear of war, every calculation of the future of the ME, was just a "bad" guy.
And they have to believe that Saddam and sons, who openly supported, funded and harbored Islamic cults, somehow distinquished between those cults, (death cults who only difference is the name they choose for themselves), for some reason hated AQ because of secularism?
They somehow believe that Saddam, after 9/11, when the US decided to fight these cults with our military and not just law enforcement, was going to stay out of the fight? Or he was not already involved in that fight?
That no-fly zones were sustainable. And that force protection of troops in SA was possible during a ME war? That Saddams refusal to live up to a surrender agreement we gave him was to be ignored during a war in the region?
Ignore the defenders of Saddam. They have already stated that they will allow a Kerry/UN/Soros/Kennedy ticket to win this election.
They have abandoned their country when they are most needed.