I am not going to get into the here there and everywhere of this but in one respect Scott is correct. Saddam did have WMD other than what you are thinking Nep. Saddam was confirmed at one time of having something along the lines of 10 million gallons (I think, it has been some 10 years since it was reported) of Botulism toxin. He also had a long standing record of not allowing UN weapons inspection teams to do their jobs. If you do not have something to hide then you do not keep people from looking.
Scott also makes a good point about how Saddam's regime was given ample warning before anyone started looking for his WMD so it is erroneous to say he did not have them. It is accurate to say none were found when we looked. There is a difference between those conditions
Also, please do consider one other thing that so many people choose to over look when they bring up the WMD issue. It is confirmed that a huge number Class 4 biohazard suits were discovered in Iraq during the invasion. I do not recall the exact number but I seem to remember hearing 50,000. That is a pretty good number, enough to outfit a good portion of an army. And to all those people who would like to argue that just cause he had them does not mean he was going to use them... I say this; you don't buy kleenex to wipe your nose on your sleeve, you don't buy a box of condoms to let them gather dust in the closet.
Now, just to quick address some specifics Nep directed to me:
-4000 vs 3000. Last I heard the confirmed was 3600 and I prefer to round up and over shoot rather than round down and "forget" anyone.
-"war on terrorism". Believe it or not I actually agree with you. I recall getting in a huge fight with my father after hearing Bush make his address to the nation where he said we would fight all nations harboring terrorists. I said that that meant we would be fighting ourselves. Because flat out our nation does harbor terrorists.
-U.S. government as terrorists. I see what you are getting at with your comments but your logic is skewed. Yes, our government did place blockages on Iraq... Under wartime conditions. Yes we bombed Iraq... Under wartime conditions. However, you have to understand that, regardless of whether you personally feel it is right or wrong, actions carried out under a declaration of war are "acts of war" and not "terrorism". By analogy, if a cop is at your residence officially and declares himself and that he is armed before kicking your door in and you pull a gun and he shoots you then you got shot in a "police action" and technically he is in the right. If, however, the cop has no right to be there, and does not declare himself but instead just kicks the door in and starts shooting then he is in the wrong and should be brought up on B&E and assault wit a deadly weapon. There is a difference in the two situations just as there is a difference in the situations you noted.