> you haven't at all addressed my main point, which is that
> Saddam was not a "terrorist" in the sense that he ever
> sponsored terrorist attacks against the U.S.A. ...
I think this is a slim point; are you saying that if there was some proof that "he" (meaning the former state of Iraq as personified by their leader) did sponsor/harbor "terrorist attacks" then you'd be okay with regime change as a policy choice by the US?
My original point was: are you okay with "takin' 'em out" in just the cases where you agree that there's a threat involved (and if so, do you get your intel briefings from NBC?)? Or even worse, just in the cases where the US _could have but didn't and thus looks bad_ ...?
/jordan