If you have a better solution, run for office. Gee, 3,000 dead Americans. Who cares? They're not worth, gasp!, retaliation, are they? After all, we should have just "understood" those terroris---er, I mean to say, freedom fighters and given them everything they wanted. In fact, we should have gone further and helped them destroy Israel. Yeah, what justification is there for a war of self-defense? In fact, Don, I am concerned that you, as a possible gun owner (I assume you might be since you're on this board) might one day accidently kill an attacker in self-defense. That would lead to lots of negative vibrations and hurt an innocent criminal who had all the right in the world to attack you and steal your stuff because he felt like it. So, sell all your guns to the next "buy back" program in your city so that doesn't happen. Because, as you've so eloquently expressed here, nothing is worth fighting for. 
Ah, no we wouldn't have been justfied in doing that. You might as well say that in the wake of the Murrah Building explosion, we would have been justified in carpet bombing Idaho.
Well, maybe they want to produce power with a cleaner and more efficient source, and save the oil for profitable sale.
...without warheads. The fact that they we're 'banned' is simply meaningless UN tripe. They had a range well under 1,000 miles, and could not possibly have been a threat to the US.
Chem suits are used in a heck of a lot more than weapons labs. Or is Iraq prohibited from using pesticide on crops?
Maybe they were worried about being invaded. Since they probably have as low an opinion of us as we have of them, they probably half expected to be hit with chem or bio weapons themselves. Look at bunkers in any country on the planet and I'll bet a lot of them have such decomtaminating systems.
What, by conquering the Saudi oil wells and refusing to sell the oil? Sorry if I find that possibility a bit loony. The Middle East doesn't have a monopoly on oil production in the first place.
And they always seem to boil down to "Them thar Saddam looked cross-eyed at Bush!" Since when is the US supposed to be the world's policeman? Behaving like this is precisely why so many countries in the Middle East hate our guts. We can enforce our will (as Bush has proved) pretty easily - but this does nothing to changes the motives of the people were worried about. If anything, it strengthens their antipathy. If we rely on military force to solve the problem, then we must keep using that force perpetually, because the moment we turn our backs, some revenge-obsessed faction is going to do their best to hurt us. Maintaining order by force is an unstable equilibrium. Keep in mind that these people have proven that they are quite willing to die in order to hurt us. Do you really think that a show of force will dissuade them? It will drive their government support farther underground, but it won't do a thing to remove the motives for the attacks upon us.
Banned is banned. Period.
I bet you'd change your tune if the UN banned your shotgun. In my eyes, the UN has no authority, over me or over Iraq or over anyone else but the UN itself.
You imply that a opposition to an invasion of Iraq equates to apathy about 9/11. This is a false dichotomy. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by individuals, who are clearly responsible for their actions. These individuals should be hunted down and punished thoroughly. But to claim that Saddam is responsible because of some tie to Al-Quida is akin to blaming First Bank for the Murrah Building bombing because they loaned money the the Militia of Montana. If Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, then let's see hard evidence of it before we go in to get him.
Please define "support center" before we go farther.
Saddam and Bush are both bad guys. They both violate (generally by proxy) peoples' rights on a regular basis.
Personally, I hope this isn't the end. 
