You say this war was about "terrorism" but we couldn't prove it.  
Well, that's seem odd to me now that we have located a number of 
terrorist training sites around Iraq, as well as finding a number
of dead al-Queda members who were there fighting on behalf of 
Saddam.  We also found the fuselage of a commercial jetliner which
seems to be a convenient place to practive hijacking a plane, don't 
you think?

Then you said it was about "WMDs", but we couldn't prove it.  Well,
they have launched a number of SCUD missiles they weren't supposed
to have.  There sure seems to be a lot of Iraqi soldiers running
around with chemical suits and gas masks.  That's not because we
were going to use gas, but we don't do that.  Do you think, maybe,
possibly, they were SCARED that Saddam would use WMDs and that they
might be victimized by it, as well?  The WMDs are there and we will 
find them.  Then, you will, of course, be forced to eat your words.

Lastly, you poke fun at the goal of freeing the Iraqi people like
you're saying, "So what?"  You said "we trained and armed this 
'ruthless dictator' back when he used to play ball with us." You say
this like he's NOT a ruthless dictator.  Do you really believe that
poor Saddam is just misunderstood?  Of course, you do.  We're the bad
guys and poor Saddam is the victim.  

And on this subject of us "training and arming" him.  So what if 
we did?  Every country has temporary relationships which serve their
immediate purposes.  But even if we did all of that, it doesn't mean
he shouldn't be disarmed.  Here's a scenario for you.  Let's say you 
there was a bad gang hanging around your neighborhood causing trouble. 
In an effort to get rid of this problem, you give a gun to another 
neighbor and train him how to use it.  Together you guys drive out, 
defeat, whatever, the gang.  Then a couple of years later, you walk out
your front door and there is that "neighbor" pointing that gun at you.
Do you just say, "No big deal.  I DID give him the gun, after all."

Your arguments are weak.