How Big A Bang Does The Anti-War Crowd Need?

A small example of death components - destroyed in the war on terrorism.

My question to those lunatics (who have to have huge caches of artillery with bio-chemical and nuclear capabilities to make our presence in Iraq justifiable) is - would you call this mass destruction, if it was in your vicinity and in the wrong hands? How big a bang do you all need to justify what a terrorist can do if given the opportunity?

Would you call Saddam Hussain's reign a stable one and left to his own devices this small example of his arsenal wouldn't have ended up in the hands of Bin Laden and associates? (The same type of person who can be creative enough to command from a hidden location small groups of people to use airplanes loaded with fuel as weapons, or motivate assassins with easily created devices of death such as pipe bombs in subways made from blackpowder). Can anyone of you positively deny this hadn't happened before 911 or wouldn't have happened afterwards? Can you, in your heart of hearts, deny the fact that this arsenal left unchecked in the hands of someone who hated the US as much as Saddam Hussain did, might not have been moved out of the country and used against our allies and our own people?

Protesters in Salt Lake City, such as Celeste Zappala from Philadelphia claim President Bush mislead us about the weapons capability in Iraq. She, like her confederate in the anti-war protest Cindy Sheehan, claims that her son died in vain looking for weapons of mass destruction. How mass of a destruction would this small cache have made? Please justify to us all, why we shouldn't be destroying these weapons before they are used on us.