David Pugh Wrote:

It seems pretty clear that, compared to the other threats, Saddam wasn't
much of a threat.

Compared to the other threats we could deal with quickly, he was #1.

Based on the pre-invasion intelligence estimates, Iraq:
had no ties to Al Qaeda

While he may have had no direct ties to Al Queda, he was a.)supporting
terrorists in the PA and Isreal by paying families of bombers a healthy stipend
("healthy" is obviously relative). Could this outward support of terrorism been
an indication of future or less visable acts? b.) Had a long relationship
(ended in hail of bullets, over what issue we may never know) with Abu Nidal
and several other terrorists. Should we just have waited until one of Saddams
supported terrorists attacked the U.S. or Americans overseas?

Those two questions are not as clear as they seem and if you don't believe the
evidence indicates a potential threat in either one than you obviously don't
believe Hussain to have been a threat.

probably had chemical or biological weapons but there were no indications
that they were exported

I believe, again, this falls into the "lets not wait until they are" catagory.
Bush said the U.S. would be proactive and it appears he meant it.

In comparison, Pakistan (nuclear weapons, exporter of nuclear technology,
direct supporter of the Taliban, direct supporter of terrorists in Kashmir)

Well, to be fair, the Pakastani government, while blind and ignorant was not
exactly the reason Pakistan conducted such activity. After 9/11, Musharif cut
all support to the Taliban and at least it appears that he (and the rest of the
government) were ignorant about the nuclear weapons technology flow out of
Pakistan. As far as Kashmir is concerned, neither India nor Pakistan is absent
blame as far as supporting unlawful combatants. The bottom line on Pakistan,
the people appear to be the ones supporting terrorists, not the government.
Going to war against a people is much harder (and bloodier) than going after a
government.

and Syria (direct supporter of terrorists, suspected of posessing chemical
and biological weapons) would seem to be far greater threats.

Syrian support for terrorists in Isreal and the PA has been overt for decades
and a concern for the U.S. since 9/11 opened our eyes. It isn't that Syria
isn't a threat, its just that they're not as vulnerable and easy to deal with
as Iraq was. I believe Syria's time is coming, whether Bush is office or Kerry,
eventually Syrian ties to a terrorist organization that srtikes the U.S. will
be discovered. Right now Assad is walking a very fine line, he's got pressure
from both sides (extremists in Syria and the U.S.), we'll see which way he
eventually falls.

Add in that the invasion does not seem to have diminished the threat that
Iraq was originally claimed to pose.

Well, one absolute is that Iraqi money will not be funding any more terrorists
or abeting suicide bombers in Isreal.

It has been claimed, for example, that
the reason that no chemical & biological weapons were found was because they
were all shipped to Syria. If so, those weapons are even more of a threat
than they were before the invasion.

I wouldn't argue more of a threat, but surely as big.

Add in the looting of Iraqi nuclear
material
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...5-wagner_x.htm)
and it is a little hard to see how invading Iraq made us safer.

It did two things. 1.)Eliminated a potential or actual supporter of terrorists
and 2.) got U.S. forces out of Saudi Arabia, a major issue with Muslim
fundamentalists.

As it was, the invasion seemed to be designed to "get Saddam" rather than
deal with the claimed threat.

I believe its because Saddam was the main threat.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"