>Well, they've invaded Kuwait in the past, have been paying the families of suicide bombers in Isreal, have attacked the Kurds living in Iraq. No, I don't think they would use the weapons maliciously.

THEY got US support when they attacked Iran. The US was mute when mustard gas was used there by THEM. There had been some indication to Saddam, prior to his attack on Kuwait, that the US might turn a blind eye, as they had done with the Iran thing. The US worked with Bin Laden in Afghanistan. The US has paid people (I.E. families) in the Congo and Mozambique and tens of other countries to rebel or to counter Communism or a variety of other things. The US has assassinated political leaders in other countries and paid for such executions by others.
The US didn't, I suppose, use napalm 'maliciously'?

I sure don't see Saddam as being any more dangerous than a whole lot of other leaders in the world, including many in the "free world".

I will give President Bush this much - at least he chose the path that might POSSIBLY lead to non-war. I suspect, though, that he is itchin to do war and fully expects Saddam to mis-step.


>
>>>Because they've had 5 more years to develop their weapons programs without any UN inspections.
>>
>>This means very little unless you can prove that they intend to use these weapons maliciouslly towards us.