[ILurkedIRegisteredIPosted]

And that would be entirely correct. North Korea has been a much more dangerous threat than Saddam's Iraq for a while. Its army could march on an important trade partner, risking some 20-30K American servicemens' lives in the process. Add in nukes and America had a real reason to get involved. Iraq's ties to terrorists were at best nominal compared to NK and Iran. Hell, Saudi Arabia was a more legitimate target after 9-11 than Iraq because the Saudis financed Al Qaida and made it possible for the destruction on our soil.

You don't have to be a lefty to legitimately oppose the invasion of Iraq. It's common sense that Iran and North Korea were and are more dire threats today than Iraq was.

[Camel Joe]

You seem to be overlooking the technological threat posed by Saddam's scientific community and apparatus. While the former dictator probably was not a direct threat he certainly posed by proxy more than an acceptable level. Do not for even one minute separate the war on terror with Iraq, as it is far more comprehensive than you might imagine. You would do well to note that logistically we are now in a position to closely monitor and intercede in either Iran or Saudi Arabia should the situation warrant such action.

[NJ_gent]

"You don't have to be a lefty to legitimately oppose the [timing of the] invasion of Iraq. It's common sense that Iran and North Korea were and are more dire threats today than Iraq was."

More accurate now, yes?

I supported the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam; just not its timing. North Korea always was the bigger threat and anyone with more than 5 minutes reading about North Korea's military and nuclear capabilities ought to know that.