It continues to amaze me that simply running through a list of Saddam's transgressions, a few recorded (and disputed), but most of them merely suspected, is offered up as de-facto justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This simply does not follow. There were other more prudent ways to deal with Iraq in 2003, given the circumstances. I've already discussed this at length, and I will not keep repeating myself. Obviously, you've chosen to disagree with my point of view, which is fine.
ps.. when someone asks you to explain an analogy which isn't necessarily obvious, why don't you just provide a brief explanation instead of coming back with a pointless put-down? That would help quite a bit.