[kesg]

I don't care to live the rest of my life hoping or wishing that Saddam's alleged (and vastly overrated) survival instinct would prevail (or continue to prevail) over any desire to kill thousands of Americans. Besides, the problem is much broader than just Saddam. Other psychopaths in that regime included his sons as well as other assorted Baathists and Fedayeen (some of which were recruited from Al Queada) infesting Iraq's security forces and intelligence operations.

The argument to the contrary is no different in principle from the arguments against taking action against the Taliban prior to 9/11, with the only difference being that Iraq under Saddam was far more dangerous than the Taliban on its worst day. We should have learned our lesson the first time around.

[Agricola]

The justification for attacking Afghanistan was self evident. It protected OBL and his AQ network and didn't even hide the fact. The same could not be said for Iraq.

As for WMD's - Syria has a more advanced program, Iran has a more advanced program. I would wager Pakistan has a more advanced program. And North Korea says they have nukes but might even sell them and tells us to go fry ice! Iraq was no real or immediate threat to us. Sadaam would have loved to be our best friend again. Iraq's WMD's was the excuse to establish a beach head in the war against terrorism.