I would support invasion if:

1) if a clear intention, plot and preparation to employ WMD against America was discovered and unequivocably demonstrated, or foiled in the process.

2) if a clear intention, plot and preparation to attack America was discovered and unequivocably demonstrated, or foiled in the process.

3) If Iraq invaded another soverign country, yet again, regardless of any use of WMD or not in that attack.

A perfectly acceptable and reasonable answer, although #3 surprises me a little. I would say it might depend on the country. We attacked Iran when they invaded Kuwait, but actually helped them fight Iran some years earlier. Go figure. I would have supported military action to help if Iraq had attacked Israel, assuming Israel needed the help.

You have already clearly established in past posts that you would regard an actual attack on America as a good reason as well, but that kind of goes without saying for almost everyone.

The only problem with #1 and #2 is that by the time such a plot was discovered and established as a certainty, it might not be possible to do anything about it until it's too late. Given the time required to mount a military attack on a nation, the attack would have to be stopped by some other means first.

And the level of proof is tricky. Would the discovery of a clearly written plan by the 9/11 terrorists to destroy the WTC have been sufficient to mount a full military regime-changing attack on Afghanistan? Before 9/11, most reasonable people, including myself, would have disagreed. What would have happened in that case is that the terrorists would have been rounded up and arrested conventionally like the original WTC bombers. And I would venture that would have been the end of it with the possible exception of a nasty letter to Afghanistan. Until the next time...when our luck ran out.

A similar written plan by a national leader, like Saddam, or the leader of Afghanistan, or by people directly under them, would be a much more compelling reason for military action, of course. Naturally, this is why leaders like Saddam, Arafat, and many others prefer to support outside groups very quietly rather than taking front line positions in terrorism themselves. "Should the terrorists be caught or killed, the Leader will disavow any knowledge of their actions." Look at how much Arafat has managed to get away with by distancing himself from the nastier elements of the Palestinian nation.

Detailed plans by terrorists for attacking targets in America and elsewhere have in fact been found when cells have been arrested and broken up. These terrorists have been based in many countries, and there has been no call to invade them. Who knows...maybe there should be. Personally, I think North Korea should be tops on the shitlist right now, but that's just me. North Korea is a lot closer now than Saddam to WMD...if you believe our intelligence...;) And they have a known history of selling weapons to anyone with a dollar in hand. I'm hoping we can talk China into stomping them down instead of us. There's a lot more of China in missile range than America.

Saddam did try to assassinate George H. W. Bush, which Clinton used to justify a military attack (but not an invasion), but although such an act is reprehensible, it would be stretching it quite a bit to make it fit #2.