"You make a good case for this, but keep in mind that Al-Qaeda (how the hell DO you spell that?) doesn't hold a world monopoly on the terrorism market, and a direct link between Iraq and 9-11 is not necessary to show that Saddam is a supporter of terrorism."

Then find one shred of evidence for a successful international terrorist operation that originated in Iraq.

"I see no reason to believe that Saddam would not, given even the slightest opportunity, go after nuclear warheads again."

Yes, but this may be the only success of the sanctions- there is no real evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program RIGHT NOW. So way the war, RIGHT NOW?

"don't think anyone is relying on the "hidden nuclear weapon program" as a major justification of the war"

Then what is the clear justification for the war, Tom?

"Other weapons of mass destruction, distributed to terrorists, are sufficiently dangerous. And if North Korea (definitely next on the agenda, although I hope it never gets to the military point) starts cranking out warheads, or some surplus ones dribble out of Russia, who do you think is sitting on loads of oil money and will be among first in line to buy one?"

Okay, then why not war with 6-12 other states in the world much more capable of providing weapons to terrorism based on
1) Their existing WMD and
2) Their PROVEN links to terrorism

"at some point I guess it boils down to who you trust."

Do you think that is what the good people in germany said before the invasion of poland? Thats just too thin for me. It should be too thin for ANY democracy. War can't be about trust, Vietnam proved that.

Davin