- Saddam attacked neighbor nations with the intent of conquest,

10 years ago, at which time we took measures to put him in check. Since there had been no further military actions by him- I see those measures at least successful in that part.

Furthermore, need I remind you, we invaded Iraq on the publically stated basis that it was an imminent threat to US national security in 2003, not that it HAD BEEN a threat in 1991.

this first stated criticism of my argument is BS.

- He constructed weapons of mass destruction and USED them on his enemies, both domestic and foreign

The last documented use of agents in the manner you describe took place well over a decade ago.

Again: We invaded Iraq on the publically stated basis that it was an imminent threat to US national security in 2003, not that it HAD BEEN a threat in 1991.

If the WMD were a threat, please deliver them up. I dare you?

this second stated criticism of my argument is BS.

- He doggedly pursued nuclear weapons even after the Israelis blew up the first attempt, and afterwards developed a new and more clandestine program in the face of U.N. inspections, a program that the U.N. would never have found if not for the first Gulf War.

The last known and proven attempt ended over a decade ago, and he had not been able to carry on his exploits under sanctions. Prove otherwise by exhibiting a nuclear program in Iraq that was a clear danger to the US or Iraqi neighbors.

Again: We invaded Iraq on the publically stated basis that it was an imminent threat to US national security in 2003, not that it HAD BEEN a threat in 1991.

this third stated criticism of my argument is BS.

- He supported terror movements in Israel and elsewhere, and engaged in actual terrorist activities including an attempt to kill a former President, which qualifies in my book as an attack on U.S. interests.

If you mean by this that he gave money to the families of Suicide Bombers, then you are factually correct, but you have no point. Saudi Arabia, Kuait and Quattar have done the same thing on various (and even equal) levels of government.

Your 'and elsewhere' remains an un-documented statement, which has no truth to it outside your 'yesyesyesyesyes' fantasising. Simply: provide proof, put up or shut up.

You also have offered no documentation or proof (here or before) for the 'president killing' charge. It is possibly true, but so are space aliens. I require evidence before I believe in the existence of either.

this fourth stated criticism of my argument is BS.

- He killed more than a million of his own people, but we all know that doesn't count unless it's in Kosovo.

re: a million people:
Documentation? And: so have a lot of our allies- you have no point.

I know I have you on the run when you draw the red herring.

this fifth stated criticism of my argument is laughable.

And if you meant he was "contained" by thousands of American troops and tons of military equipment surrounding Iraq, how many years do you think we could have sustained THAT? Aren't you one of the ones bitching about how much this is costing us?

Prescisely. Our presence there was much cheaper than indefinite and aimless occupation.

Face it. Your only real alternative, same as that of many others, was to ignore Saddam, and hope that the shit hit the fan on someone else's watch. Hell, it worked for Clinton, didn't it? He did the same thing with North Korea, and now look where we are. And we KNOW they are building nukes.

Another red herring with Clinton. But as far as putting him in a box, thats not the same thing as ignoring him. Quite the opposite.

Bush's approach was not the normal "business as usual" approach. It remains to be seen how long it will take to work, or if the results will be permanent. At least someone finally changed a variable. And yeah, reasonable people can ask "why Iraq? Why not North Korea, or Iraq?" But the idea of actually removing a threat instead of trying to talk it to death is still valid.

So you have nothing in terms of a well-thought out exit strategy. Hmm. Amusing to see what you eat when the tables are turned.

Prove, BTW, that Iraq was a threat, or are you too just blabbering your beliefs?

Good God, did you ever see ANY war with a workable "exit strategy?"

Yeah, sure, WWII, WWI, The American Revolution, the American Civil War... etc. Precisely those wars we can judge as won. Funny how tat works, eh Tom?

What was the "exit strategy" for WWII? There were plans, to be sure, but when they went tits-up, they went on from there, and didn't call the goddam war off.

Well, its pretty clear. When you have two world powers trying to kill everyone who is an American, that you make them stop, and you do that by defeating them over and over on the field of battle, outproducing them and generally whipping them as hard as you can until they stop, and stop in a manner that promises that they will never be able to do it [slaughter americans] again. Was that plainly enough put for you?

The very concept of "exit strategy" is probably originally an invention of the anti-war Left.

No, its probably an invention of those who go to war to win and generally not die, not for beliefs and petty political standpoints, but thats just my opinion.

Sorry, Tom. But you have nothing. You are all huff and no puff here.

Davin L.