So, you intended your comment to mean we NEVER need to deal with Iraq - it could be interpreted that way. I just didn't think anyone could be that . . . well, you know.
I guess I'm one of those poor ignorant saps who thought President Bush and Secretary Powell have made a compelling case - you did watch Secretary Powell today, didn't you and the SOTU speech? Willing to bet your keester that none of that chem/bio would ever show up in the US and Saddam would never use a nuke?
The blood for oil argument is so stupid. First, we have plenty of oil now and Saddam wants to sell more not less. Second, there are places we can get more without going to war, like Russia or ANWR or a mild step-up in Saudi production. Third, if we wanted to go to war for oil there are lots easier places to go, like sending peacekeepers to Venezuela which barely has an army much less nerve gas.
Your handle evidences some confusion - are you concealing French ancestry?