[NutCrackerBoy]

So help me see the evidence that Saddam's regime was a direct or imminent threat to Americans at home. That attacks on Americans will be reduced, instead of increased, by more meddling in this foreign culture.

First, Saddam had vast oil income (despite sanctions), absolute power, sophisticated technology, and connections to evil terror masters. This situation could have if it had not already grown into something fatal for us.

Second, there really is no realistic choice for the West to keep its hands off of the Middle East trouble spots. It is just impossible to succeed in the alternate strategy: building up sufficient fortifications in every vulnerable spot.

The strategy instead is to kill the terrorists and to get rid of or sufficiently alter every terror-sponsoring rogue regime.

[BlueLu]

To me this is not persuasive evidence, any more than it is to say that *enter American oil barron's name here* should have been imprisoned, because he had enough wealth in the bank and in the ground to cover up and get away committing heinous crimes if he had wanted to.

And, yes Saddam had "ties" to terrorists (other than his own police), but it sounds to me like he was keeping ties to them in order to keep tabs on them, and keep them from destabilizing his regime -- much as, for good reason, the CIA do.

I agree with having intelligence agents in the Middle East and in punishing terrorists. And I want very much to believe that there is good reason to have sent the US military there, but I remain unconvinced.