Tech1
"PS What part of the threat of WMD...... That is supposition not logic"

No, its not supposition- its a fact. He did not use his KNOWN WMD against us when we were stomping his army into the sand-- True or False?

"Again supposition. Each person who is paid [....] "
How is this supposition? Its a matter of fact- it is either True or False that Iraq is a clear and present danger to the US. I will grant you WMD, but I don't see ANY credible evidence that he is planning to use them against the US currently. In fact, he has been in constant conlict and sometimes war with our nation and has been DETERRED, effectively, from using them. What has changed, why is he now a clear and present danger? where is the evidence?

tech1:
"Each person who is paid to assess threats and dangers to national security will have varying opinions as to which nation poses the gravest threat. Saddam, due to his character and motive, will round out any top 5 list."

You would seem to argue, then, that being on this 'top 5' list makes you a clear and present danger to the US and by the argument being employed by the bush administration, we must make war against them.

In any case, there is a difference between being a 'top 5' threat and being a clear and present danger deserving of pre-emptive war - Mind you, this is the argument that Bush Administration makes and I don't buy.

tech1:
"and very few have billions of dollars to flush away for WMD and a nuclear weapons program"

While I was not able to quickly locate 2003 numbers, this was quote was attributed to the monteray institute in 1998... And FAS is a pretty good source.

http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1998/03/980319-wmd.htm

"CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
WEAPONS ARE AVAILABLE TO ELEVEN NATIONS, ACCORDING TO THE
MONTEREY INSTITUTE'S CENTER FOR NON-PROLIFERATION STUDIES AND THE
HENRY L. STIMSON CENTER. THESE COUNTRIES ARE CHINA, EGYPT, IRAN,
IRAQ, ISRAEL, LIBYA, NORTH KOREA, RUSSIA, SYRIA, TAIWAN AND THE
UNITED STATES. "

Those who are hostile to the US include
N Korea
Iran
Iraq
Syria
Sometimes China

Syria, China and Libya are certainly outside of our authority, and Egypt is moving away very rapidly. So, are we to War with them as well? I do not take your point here.

Tech1
"Letting someone with Saddam's track record remain in power until he absolutely obtains nuclear weapons is an unnecessary risk to the US. We know what its like living in fear of nuclear bombs raining down upon us. However it was always tempered by the thought of mutual destruction and sane leadership. "

What makes saddam more predictable is his insane lust for power. We make it 100% clear to him, as we have for the last 12 years, that if he steps out of his box and/or uses Nuke, Chem or Bio on anyone outside his borders we will take him down- then he will stay in his box. He will bitch and moan and throw a
little flak at our patrolling jets, but thats just about it.

Again, under the right circumstances and with the correct justification, I have no problem making war against merderous tyrants. This is just the wrong war at the wrong time without good justification or world context- And THAT is what makes this an insane thing to do right now. Again, we will be made out as Nazis!

Tech1:
"However the socialists (the driving and organizing force behind the protests) "

This, again, is a red herring. The american right is often funded by religious nuts and bigots, does this make their organization ALWAYS incorrect? The protests may have been funded by some shady organizations, but the sentiment expressed by the participants is real and in some cases they have a good point. To find some irrelevant point to use to dissmiss them ad-hoc is a very dumb thing to do. I find this absurd.

Respectfully,

Davin Lafon