[Michael81Dus]

I don´t challenge that Saddam was and is evil/mad. But I doubt that he posed a threat to the whole world - at least by 2003. Any hints for the opposite, now that we all learned that he had no WMD when the war started?

[avital2]

but as Prez, could you take the chance that you were wrong?

[AaronInCarolina]

I don´t challenge that Saddam was and is evil/mad. But I doubt that he posed a threat to the whole world - at least by 2003. Any hints for the opposite, now that we all learned that he had no WMD when the war started?

He, by himself alone, did not pose the threat to the world. that he did in cooperation with those who would actually deploy the nerve agents and biological substances. Leave him in place to re-constitute a dangerous amassing of chemical and biological agents once sanctions are removed makes him a very dangerous source for those who would take them to all parts of the world. I can't make it any more clear than that.

And yes, I have heard all the arguments that he wouldn't cooperate with terrorists in such a way. If you want to place your trust in Saddam Hussein possessing these things in a safe manner (and he would have re-constituted them... that is what this report said), then go ahead. But if a little chunk of our New York city citizens are murdered by chemical or biological (or God forbid nuclear) deployments, then you can explain to their families how Saddam seemed so trustworthy!

[Defiant]

But I doubt that he posed a threat to the whole world - at least by 2003.

You are right, he was not a threat to the whole world in 2003. He loved Germany and France, and Russia and China too. He was just a threat to the US and Israel. We drew straws, and the US came up with the longer straw, and we took him out.

[Dr. Frank fan]

But I doubt that he posed a threat to the whole world

This is an arrogant thing to say. Apparently the United States may not attack someone unless he poses a threat TO THE WHOLE WORLD.

In other words, it's NOT ENOUGH just to be an enemy of the United States itself. No. He must be a threat TO THE WHOLE WORLD. Otherwise, no war, United States!

Sorry but frankly I don't give a rat's ass about what kind of threat Saddam Hussein was to the "world". It's the United States which interests me, as an American citizen. I hope that's ok with me.

People from Germany saying the US shouldn't attack X because X poses no threat to Germany just really pisses me off.

now that we all learned that he had no WMD when the war started?

You think he had "no WMD" when the war started?

Does that include anthrax? Give your proof please that Saddam had no anthrax.

[ApesForEvolution]

How would a German know what a real threat to the real world is?