| I'll humor him.
Why Saddam?
History of belligerance against the US.
Near daily missile and AAA firings on our patrol aircraft over the No Fly Zones.
Mass murder.
History of harboring (Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Zarqawi) and assisting (suicide bombers) terrorism.
Known multiple and high level contacts with al Qaeda (from the 9/11 report).
History of attacking neighboring states (within a fiur year span he ended his war with Iran and attacked/brutalized Kuwait) and destabilizing the entire region.
Billions in assets annually at his disposal to fund his campaign against the West, specifically the US.
Thousands of loyal supporters willing to kill for him.
An assassination plot against a former president.
History showing the capability and willingness to use chemical weapons against civilians.
At a minimum, the sophistication and equipment to produce mass quantities of chemical, biological weapons.
And over a decade long pseudo war with the US and our allies.
Saddam was the head of a brutal, win at all costs regime with a serious axe to grind against the US and the capability (equipment, troops, funds) and willingness to target the US (firing on our troops in the No Fly Zones on a near daily basis, attempts to assasinate US citizens).
If I noted there was a psychopath with billions at his disposal, access to chemical and/or biological weaponry, loyal followers numbering in the tens of thousands, a recent and prolonged history of war with the US, the cold blooded nature to murder civilians by the thousands, etc...
Would you think I was talking about Saddam or Osama? Is there much of a difference after 9/11? You no longer need 50 divisions and three carrier groups to threaten the West (specifically the US). You need enough money and organization to do it. If you also demonstrate the willingness and histiry, you create an unacceptable situation for US national security.
Take North Korea, for example. Where is their recent history of belligerance against the US? Where is the Sudan's? There is no pressing national security threat. There is significant threat potential in North Korea and Iran (although Iran's belligerance is far more current and frequent) to warrant our attention and energy. There is just no cause to initiate military action. The Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Haiti, etc. are significant humanitarian issues and require a different approach and response.
Get it?
__________________  |