Is world better without Saddam?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's one of the most outstandingly stupid things I've heard in a long time.  It is no more morally right to launch a pre-emptive war than it is to shoot someone on the off chance he might decide to rob a bank someday.

Boru

If you read the links you might know that there was wide suspicion that Saddam was making deadly WMDs: Nerve gas, anthrax, nuclear weapons, smallpox, etc etc.

The USA was already in a war with him, since the first Gulf War had not ended.

I suppose I wonder what if any adverse consequenes would there be if he and his regime were still around? Would he be a threat or would he help keep Iran in check like he did in the 80s?

I don't much care if Hussein had nerve agents hidden inside every cat in his country - possession of a weapon does not merit a pre-emptive war. The United States currently has around 5000 (I think) nuclear warheads and has used them in war. Does this merit other nations attacking the US, on the chance that the US might - someday - use them again?

Boru