Wow, your level of reading comprehension suggests to me that you may be, at this very moment, living up to your full potential....as a PE coach. It is guys like you that caused the SAT to re-centered so many times in the past thirty years, that I was able to score 160 points higher than my father even though he is twice as smart and educated as I was. If you are wondering, I scored just under what the president on west wing scored.
So, let me break my post down all simple like for you:
My point about Saddam killing his own people is what should have been our reason, along with the simple, very simple fact that Iraq never even began to live up to our treaty requirements. That's it. No WMD nescessary, nothing else necessary.
Now, President George, in trying to justify us going to war used other reasons, such as terrorism (so far all bullshit), and WMD (so far all bullshit). I remember all of this very well. I also remember many, many democrats who also saw the same intelligence reports, coming to the same conclusion about the WMD. Did they all think that going to war over it was necessary? Nope. Do I agree with them? Yep. Like I said before, President Bush was probably blinded by his father's assasination attempt, and was just reaching for the latest scary propaganda to justify the war.
I think that we should have decided to actually go and inspect wherever we wanted, no matter what Saddam said, and the UN should have backed this as it was part of the original agreement, but probably not war.
Those reason being addressed, do I think we should have gone in there and gutted Saddam for his practices of killing his own people? Yes. Sorry, I do. If we had the same dominant power back in the late 30's, I would say we should have gone in and crushed Hitler also, not help him to kill the Jews like the French did. (What is funny is that we actually care what France thinks... have they won anything since Napoleon? Do they contribute anything except high end fashion, art, and body odor to the world? I think they had a decent soccer team a few years back... other than those few things, that's it. Plus, didn't they not allow us to use their airspace a while back during some military actions? What we should do is tell them to cram their Maginot Line up their....)
Economic sanctions against Iraq were not a possibility due to the nature of their resource and its need in Europe, so military action is the only solution.
While Bush fell onto this reason late, as you have correctly pointed out, I felt it was the correct reason from the start. He was just using false fears to justify what was already justified...therefore, he should face the music he is right now.
What you failed to grasp is that our views on what you said are very similar. I am not a republican by a long shot. I am principled, and therefore definitely not liberal either. There is a vast difference between the three. But, if I were going to post a thread and run my cakehole, I would try to back it with some logic and reasoning. Not just simple touchy feely rhetoric (view your own original post).
I hope this helps. I tried not to use any big words, and organized this as simply as possible to accomodate your level of reading comprehension. If you get really angry at me, I am sure you can vent about it on an I-Village thread, which I am positive you have Bookmarked.
If you are still unsure of what my views are, I can put together some simple questions with answers for you to review. But, judging by your last thread, it probably wouldn't go very well.