1- He did not acquire nuclear weapons
2- He would not have used them against NATO if he did acquire them
3- There is no proof that he had WMDs
4- He had the support of the Iraqi people
5- He kept Iraq united
6- He kept the terrorists at bay
7- He wanted to stop using dollars in the Iraqi central bank, and peg the Iraqi currency to the Euro. That's the real reason why they invaded him.

Also, George Bush wanted to have a legacy. Iraq was the best army in the middle east at that time (even though it kept losing its wars), and Afghanistan is the hardest country to invade in the world. The British, Russians and Soviets all tried and failed. He wanted to be the one to succeed. He also failed.

Colonel that's bullshit. Your saying George Bush invaded because he wanted that to be his legacy? Are you fucking kidding me? Lol who the hell would want that as their reputation. I don't know what crap British communist news papers tell you but George Bush invaded because at the time he thought they had bombs. Heck, saying he wanted oil is a better argument then simply saying he saw them as a " challenge ". Btw I don't know if you remember this but...we won lol. We accomplished all of our goals and left when we wanted too. You make Hussain sound like St. Michael. Do you even remember the stories of how he murdered a school boy and his family because his father had said something that could be slightly considered sarcastic towards his dictatorship? Of course you don't because all these dam newspapers and history books ever tell is that Bush invaded for oil, we were the evil white guys, etc.

Correction, Israel had the best army while Iraq had the biggest.

Britain declared war on Iraq because they was told if they backed America they would receive 1/4 of Iraqi oil. So yes I do believe it was illegal invasion.

Of course it was illegal. Saddam was less of a threat in 2003 than when he invaded Kuwait and Saudi Arabia...

Shut up muslim dog, nobody care about Saddam and all this terrorist countries

http://www.arrestblair.org/blairs-crimes

All your base are belong to us. I'm Scottish, which, as far as I know, is a country which champions anti-terrorism.

FACT: there's proof he was trying to get weapons. That's why the UN sent people in to inspect in the first place!

FACT: he had chemical weapons which probably would have been enough to justify an invasion anyway

FACT: the only reason Iraq was better under Hussein then now is because Obama ordered troops out before the work was finished


FACT: don't start saying it was all the conservatives fault because if I remember correctly, Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair ( both known liberals ) supported the war entirety

The invasion of Iraq regardless of why was a complete and utter failure. Trillions wasted, thousands of lives lost, and absolutely nothing to show for it.

That being said, Bush did invade Iraq without proper intelligence. There were no WMD and there was no chance of Hussein getting a nuclear weapon in my opinion. The real reason was the desire of neocons to secure oil supplies for the Western World and institute regime change. The Iraq war was the single greatest disaster of the 21st century (so far) and has ruined the reputation of the GOP among a huge segment of the voting population. Bush, Clinton, and every establishment candidate deserves to be kicked out of office for their role in it.

I disagree. Listen, even the UN ( which I hate ) NATO, and other organizations all had intelligence saying Hussain was trying to make a bomb. UN sent inspectors, Iraq kicked them out, America threatened Iraq, Iraq let them back in then kicked them out again, America with intelligence saying they were making a bomb declared war. Hussain had nuclear scientists, labs, and even scant bomb martials but not a bomb itself. Because of this, liberals decided to ride on Bush's failure to win the election ( even though they had supported it themselves ). Bush wasn't mainly after oil ( in my opinion ) but it wouldn't surprise me if that was a added bonus.

If Bush cared about murderous dictators with nuclear weapons he'd have gone after North Korea too.

^ +1 Butler

North Korea cant be fought with igniting a war with China.

US vs China = nuclear apocalypse.

get it?

It's to China's advantage to get rid of North Korea.

Of course not. NK acts as a buffer to China and is a pain to the free world ( which China always loves )

South Korea is a better trading partner, and North Korea sours relations in East Asia.

South Korea is an American ally. China wouldn't want a United Korea under a free government

South Korea is good for trade, the US and South Korea can't take China even if they did unite Korea and North Korea is run by a awful government that is a drain on China.

I'm Scottish, which, as far as I know, is a country which champions anti-terrorism.

Aye!