"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
...
" wrote:


So, yeah, given the above, they did think Sadam had
WMDs in that house. And even then they gave him a year or
more to finally comply and just allow Interpol to inspect
his house, to find out for sure per the previous agreement
he had signed. Even with hundreds of cops outside,
ready to bust down the door, he thumbed his nose at
them all.

That is your fair analogy. Now, what would be reasonable
under those circumstances?

As you say, there is no doubt he had WMD's at some point. He used them on
his
own people. Saddam was a bad guy and the world is better off without
him. But the world is full of bad guys with WMD's.

Why was it our job to take out Saddam? Why him instead of Kim Jong-un?.

He's got 10,000 artillery tubes in range of Seoul. The destruction from
those
would be massive. He's also has an atomic weapons program that has
produced at
least one device. That one was kind of a fizzle, but he'll get it right
some
day.

Apparently Syria is getting ready to use Sarin gas on its people. Another
bad
guy with WMD's.

So why Saddam? He was contained.


Was he ?

As to your comparison to North Korea and Syria, do you always make
comparisons that are 20+ years apart ?
Talk about intellectual dishonesty

What people like you often forget is to look for other reasons and factors
I realize that complicates your simplistic and simplified view of the
world, but you would end up with a better grasp of things.