The questions one SHOULD ask are

Are we safer now than we would have been if we had not attacked Saddam?

THAT is a debate: One must consider both the increased risk due to animosity, the decreased risk due to the ending of the WMD DEVELOPMENT efforts, the increased/decreased risk due to the fear of other nations about what the US is willing to do. At this point, the discussion has not been started.


The same discussion should be made about Iran: What is the increase of risk IF we attack vs. the risks if we do not, given the failures of diplomacy? How many will die in a global thermonuclear war (if we allow Iran to use WMD) vs, how many will die in a conventional invasion ( if the UN takes military action) vs. how many will die in a limited strategic strike ( if the US or Israel decides it is in danger of attack). Of course, the chance of a limited strike leading to GTW is high.