...scaring the Hell out of them is the only thing we can use to get them to do anything.
What was the US trying to get Saddam to do? Inspectors were allowed into Iraq, they were confident that their inspections were achieving the goal of verifying the destruction of Iraq's weapons programs, and Iraq was not in the process of, and showed no intentions to, invade one of its neighbors.

Saddam was asked to disarm before it was shown that he had any weapons to destroy. If he didn't have any WMD's, he had no ability to comply with the demand. If he did possess WMD's, why did the president insist that Iraq was preparing to launch a WMD attack on the US long before inspections could show that any WMD's existed? Even supposing that evidence existed that Iraq had any WMD's, what evidence existed that demonstrated Iraq was preparing an attack?

World domination is impossible because the most powerful countries in the world would not let it happen. I was saying that without opposition from the world's three most powerful countries, Nazi world domination would have happened. Without opposition from the U.S., Soviet world domination would have happened. The Nazis took over a huge chunk of Europe very quickly. What would have stopped them from doing that to the rest of the world if the U.S., the Soviet Union, and Britain had not existed? It is not like they would have just gotten tired and stopped.
I'm supposing that you agree with my statement that inventing the condition that the most powerful resistance is taken out of the equation is designed to yield victory for the would-be conquerer. A single man could take over the planet if his most powerful foes were removed and no one else stood up against him.

I think, however, that you place too much emphasis on the 'big three.' As I also stated earlier, removing the most powerful forces of resistance does not leave the rest of the world unchanged. Other forces of resistance would spring out of their apathy to fill the void. When there are large forces of resistance, there are few smaller ones, and when there are no large forces of resistance, there are many smaller ones. Terrorism is an excellent example of this diffusion of resistance, and a testament to its efficiency, if not its virtuosity.

I have not argued that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program in 2003.
...
I am talking about the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. I think they were probably shipped to Syria or some other country, but for all we know they might be a mile under the desert in Iraq.
Why didn't Saddam use them in self-defense instead of getting rid of them?

If your shipping hypothesis is correct, why isn't there a major effort underway to locate these weapons? It doesn't seem like the US intelligence community would just let those slip away and into the hands of potential terrorists or rogue states.

If your buried-in-the-desert hypothesis is correct, it explains Saddam not using them in self-defense, but it raises another question:

If Saddam's WMD's were buried in the desert or shipped to another country, why was he an immediate threat? As above, what evidence was there that an imminent attack was going to be carried out?