Because China or dozens of other countries are not threatening the world with the release of small pox, anthrax, VX nerve agent, Sarin, and dispersion of dirty radioactive materials - in addition to grinding up people alive, gassing their own people with mustard gas, and other oh so cute activities. And these other countries have not to our knowledge developed special relationships with Osama bin Laden and his worldwide troupe of merry men dedicated to the proposition that the entire earth should be converted to Islam by main force.
Many of these claims have not been proven. The analysts (outside of right-wing American/British ones) say that Iraq is not a big threat outside his region. Iraqi defectors have said the sanctions have had a much more detrimental effect than we know. Reports of Iraq trying to obtain nuclear materials have been shown to be hoaxes. Aluminum tubes were for missles and fit the specs of missles, not for nuclear uses, as claimed. And Reagan/Rumsfield never cared about Saddam killing his own people. No, they tried to get more chummy with him and help him out. And no link between Al Queda and Iraq has been proven either. If there's real proof, I wish they'd lay it out on the table instead of the flimsy stuff they have.
Is Saddam really a threat to us? I don't think so. The idea that he's an out-of-control madman is mostly from the demonising of him as part of a propaganda campaign. How mad can he be to stay in power for so long without a takeover? And if he was so bad, why was Reagan anxious to do business with him? Like Simon says, he's probably not a very nice guy and is certainly guilty of many distasteful acts. But when is it our job to decide we need to go around invading every country to bring about a regime change just because we don't like their leader?
And by the way, exactly what is coming out of China right now? Chinese chemical warfare testing? On civilians? There's about as much proof of that as there is that Iraq has WOMD. Why not go invade China? Because we'd either get our asses kicked or fight to a stalemate. It's a war we can't win and will cost many human lives. We are the bullies here beating up the crippled kid. Iraq is weak and our motivations are political, not heroic.
If you want me to agree with the war, you're going to have to prove Saddam is a threat. You can't manipulate me by waving a flag or by saying I'm unpatriotic to not follow the president or by bringing up 9/11. That's irrelevant. You can't sway me by making Saddam out to be Hitler and demonising him. Stick to the facts relevant to war, not character assassinations. Is there proof of WOMD? If so, then why not tell the weapons inspectors where, so they can go discover them? Why have other nations, despite having access to intellegence information, why have they not jumped on the bandwagon?
Give me facts and proof as to why it is best that we attack before being attacked and why that will help us. Right now, there's too much heresay and hoaxes and exagerations, that no lawyer could win a conviction with.