[MJM59]

Nope, Iraq doesn't particularly frighten me. However, I do think that Saddam would be better off gone. But then again, George Sr. should have finished the job a decade or so ago, after Saddam had tried to take over another country. Now, we all are supposed to be shaking in our shoes about what he might do. If that scares you, then you must be ready to wet yourself when it comes to countries that are already nuclear capable and have a problem with the U.S.

[Howlin]

Well, he didn't; try to stop fighting old wars. We have to deal with what's in front of us.

[LS]

I'm not shaking in my shoes, but I do see a HUGE difference between "nuclear capable" countries like Pakistan, France, and Russia and Saddam's Iraq:

Threat #1 (and Bush downplayed this): Saddam was clearly linked to 9/11, STILL has ties to Al-Quaeda, and probably has already armed a few terror cells with gas/bio weapons.

Threat #2: He is feverishly working to get longer-range delivery systems that can reach our bases.

Threat #3: the nukes.

It is a simple question: if on Sept. 10 you knew what was known on Sept. 11 about Al-Quaeda and OBL, would you have acted preemptively? The answer is obviously yes. We know much more about Saddam's abilities and intentions, and they are both worse than OBL. He needs to go. He's the one shaking.