Once again, going to war against Iraq had **NOTHING** to do with his ability to mount a conventional defense against an American army. Hussein's "competent defense" ability (or lack thereof), is besides the point.
It is **you**, and your Libertarian ilk, who insist upon arguing such straw men as Hussein's inability to defend competently with his conventional forces.
I merely pointed out a couple of easy reasons to show that you had missed the point of Hussein's "threat" to the world residing in his ability to fund and potentially arm terrorists for their attacks on peaceful civilians, rather than on what little harm they could do to a modern army.