Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida
I think your reasons are flimsy and stretches but agin we will just disagree.
So when you begin to paint a picture of Saddam, it's not a picture of a benign threat, but a picture of a potentially lethal threat. I'll concede that we've got to use the word "potential"; but it's not an unreasonable projection by any means.
But this word potential leads to pre-emptive and I am not for pre-emptive wars involving 200,000 troops in a standing army/nation building capacity. I can agree with pre-emptive surgical strikes on selected targets though.
It all begs the question of why we are still there to me. All goals have been accomplished. Why do we stay? Why do we need a large "embassy", why do we need 200,000 troops on the ground still? Why do we pay sheiks?
Bad foreign policy in my eyes and if I can see it, what do the Iraqis/rest of the world see?