Prove that he was. He didn't have a military -- army, navy or air force - worth squat. He was hemmed in by sanctions and overflight patrols. His country was poorer than dirt. He didn't have WMDs -- as Bush has publicly said. (Bush says we had bad intelligence and that it turns out Saddam didn't have WMDs). He was less a threat to us than Cuba, and I don't hear anybody on FR arguing for invading Cuba.
No I told you to prove that he was not a threat. You are sidestepping the subject like any troll. But it appears that not even "Post Amnesty" is helping you when other people who have been here that long are gaining up on you.
You are dumb to think only in military terms and ignore his support for terrorists. Oh and there were several instances where nerve gas was found, another fact that you ignore.
Every single troll is an ENEMY OF THE REPUBLIC!
The country of Iraq might have been poor; Saddam and his cronies there and in France and in Canada and in Russia and yes even in England ( George Galloway ) and those in the UN ( Koffi's son and many others !) were getting stinking rich, breaking those, ahem, *cough*, "sanctions".
You hate President Bush and have been posting, for years, any and ALL negative articles you can dredge up ( from the N.Y. Times to things on Slate.com, for crying out loud! ), which impugn the president and our military. Now, you've taken to posting your offish, garbage vanities to news. YOU AREN'T NEWS; NOTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY IS NEWS WORTHY!
It is well document that Saddam had both chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was to to get rid of these weapons AND Saddam was supposed to prove that he did.
He didn't. He was removed.
"His country was poorer than dirt. "
For being poorer than dirt, Saddam sure had plenty of royal palaces.
"He didn't have WMDs -- as Bush has publicly said. "
I will point you to what even the DEMS said prior to President Bush first term.
Oh yeah, you don't like being reminded of such things.