You are inferring what I did not imply. I'll be the first to admit that there were many other reasons, but the one trumpted most loudly and most often was WMD's. He has them, will he use them when we go in against him, has 45 minutes to launch a strike. Clearly, without the WMD's, Saddam's threat is mild.
Make no mistake. He's was a brutal and sinister ruler. Removal would have been proper. But invasion may have not been proper or necessary.
No, I am inferring that you implied that WMDs were the only legitmate reason for going to war. Why else even have this discussion? You essentially say that here:
Make no mistake. He's was a brutal and sinister ruler. Removal would have been proper. But invasion may have not been proper or necessary.
Clearly, without the WMD's, Saddam's threat is mild.
That is a silly assertion. In order to make it you have to be willing to say that not only did Hussein destroy all of the WMDs he did posess, but that he would not attempt to restart production at a later date.