Tom wrote:
"The cops have a different "bar" of reasonable suspicion for someone with a rap sheet a mile long than they have for someone who has no record of misbehavior. "

Yeah, and we are not the elected or appointed Cops of the 'legal authority of all nations'- in fact, thankfully, I don't think any such authority exists.

And Iraq is not an individual person we can lock up and punish. Its a nation, and if we want to punish Iraq for the choices of its leaders, then we end up killing, maiming generally slaughtering largew numbers of people (which we did) who have nothing at all to do with the choices of the leaders.

Now, if the choices of the leader and/or the actions of the nation of Iraq were endangering us directly, then self defense dictates we are at least morally permitted to incur reasonable collateral damage.

But we were NOT threatened. We are not cops, Iraq (as a nation) is not a criminal, this isn't a starwars movie... etc... So again- this is all bullshit. I expect you, out of my respect for you, to be able to see that.

"You'll notice we haven't invaded Mexico, or Britain for that matter"

Yes, but under your premise of

'COULD be true so INVADE first and find out later, cause nobody aint omniscient'

All someone has to do is be in authority and concoct a whopper about Mexico or Brittain, and then say "well, we ain't Omniscient! COULD be true! We BETTER invade".

Tom wrote:
"Saddam had a proven record of building WMD, concealing WMD programs (including nuclear), using WMD, and invading other nations with every weapon at his disposal."

But Saddam has no record of using WMD against America and her allies, even in the process of being attacked and gravely defeated by Amertica and her allies. Therefore no self defense can be made from sheer preponderance of evidence even IF we stipulate WMD.

And again, its not like this is a societal justice issue with us as police and Saddam as a singleton criminal.

QED. End of story. Proved. Over- you just don't want to smell the coffee.

" A person's past behavior, and a regimes, counts for something when you are trying to predict future behavior."

Yep, true, and Saddams past behavior, while proves himself as a jackal who deserves to die slowly, does not prove that he is or was a threat to the United States.

"only an idiot would assume he had given up his ambitions"

And where are his ambitions direct;ly threatening to the vital interests or soverignty of the united states?

"We can go on like this all day (in fact, I think we have), but I have to live in the real world. "

Here is another ad hominem, BTW. I live in the real world as much as you. This argument is ABOUT the real world. If the real and whole world of nations operated off the principles you put forth and that this administration is using, it will be a HELL of a world.

Tom wrote:
"To put it simply, the world has two fewer murderous tyrannies in it than it had a couple of years ago, and I see that as a good thing"

Ohhh! Good job! A red herring and a fiction in one sentence!!!

While there is ONE less tyranny- people are still dying on the streets and in the shadows on Iraq. Just getting rid of Saddam does not stop the tyranny. Only peace and stability will and we have yet to maintain that.

"According to polls, so does a large majority of America. "
The lamest thing I heard all week. A majority of Americans believe in alien visitation, Tom!

God!

Okay, so was this it? all you got?

So were down to faith and a "majority of americans"

Man, count me out.