You believe he has WMDs, but you don't consider him a threat because "if he attacks anyone directly", there are defensive measures which can be taken.
Um. By the time he has attacked, with those WMDs that you and I both agree he has, we'll be talking about thousands dead or more. By then it's kinda too late; the point is that we don't want to let it get to that point.
As for giving them to terrorists, there is absolutely no hard evidence for any such thing.
Slight correction: you haven't seen any hard evidence for any such thing. You aren't periodically given personal briefings regarding classified information, are you?
Anyway, we can try to disarm now or we can wait till there's "hard evidence" that Saddam will supply or has supplied terrorists with WMDs. The problem is, there's not much conceivable "hard evidence" which can convince certain folks, short of a pile of dead bodies.
Again, we're trying not to let it get to that point. Better safe than sorry.
Again, we're trying not to let it get to that point. Better safe than sorry.
I feel safer knowing my military is kept in reserve for a real threat. Also somewhat safer (or less apprehensive) keeping Iraq the way it is, rather than having it disintegrate into warring factions, some supported by Iran, possibly spreading fighting into Turkey. Finally, there's other sources for WMD's for terrorists, for example if they have money they can buy them from North Korea. We certainly can't afford to attack every country that could possibly supply WMD's to terrorists.