We did not find evidence to our claim, so the evidence must've been destroyed. No, no, we were never wrong. That can't be. It must be that the evidence was destroyed.

Actually, this is untrue.

Iraq was no democracy that is right. But it had decent standard of living, decent health care and education for the region. And it was a stable country.

Killing him destabilized the country. The political vacuum gave space to the rise of ISIS, which not only destabilized Iraq but other countries in the region like Syria and Yemen. This lead to the death of more than 60.000 people, a hate for all modern accomplishments, repression of minorities, a lot of terror attacks and a much, much worse life for everyone there.

All of that because George W. Bush had a minority complex in the shadow of his father and had to swing his dick around to prove he is someone.

So yeah, the world would be a much better place if Saddam Hussein was still alive, even though it would be far from being a great place. Killing Hussein was stupid and irresponsible.

Your ignoring the Halabja attack, which the US and the world strongly condemned.

"The Halabja massacre took place in Iraqi Kurdistan on 16 March 1988, when thousands of Kurds were killed by a large-scale Iraqi chemical attack. 

To date, the Halabja massacre remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated region in human history,^[5] killing between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injuring 7,000 to 10,000 more.

In 2010, the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal officially defined the Halabja chemical attack as a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people during the time of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre

You are mixing up the Iraq wars. It is easy enough. The 1991 invasion in Iraq was led by the US under George H.W. Bush. The 1998 attack predates this. But we are talking about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by the US under George W. Bush (the son of george H.W. Bush). You cannot use the Halabja massacre as justification for an war with more than a decade later, especially if said massacre already lead to another war effort before. The 2003 war invented "evidence" as justification. I guess George W. bush wanted to follow in the footsteps of his daddy. It seems you are not very educated about recent historical events, if you mixed these two up.

Dude, it's very simple. Saddam had chemical weapons and used them against Iran and his own people (in 1988!), well before any US-Iraq conflict.

Dude, it's very simple. Daddy bush already did wage a war against Saddam Hussein a decade earlier that was among other things justified with these chemical attacks. There was no chemical attacks after that and Iraq actually had to follow some inspection protocols for chemical warfare. As sonny president had to impress his daddy, he fabricated "evidence" to wage war. That war we are talking about. No chemical weapons here.

It is like the european countries would declare war on the US today for annexing Hawaii in 1898. And invent "evidence" that the US plans to annex the Philippines now.

There was no justification for the 2003 war. It was all sonny Bush had to show that he is a big boy now.

Do you agree with this timeline?
1988- Halabja massacre
1991 - Operation Desert Storm
2003 - US-Iraq war

Sure, it is exactly what I said. No chemical weapons between 1991 and 2003, so the justifications for the 2003 war were fabrications.

EDIT: I wonder how someone fares in todays world with so much lies and bullshit, if they still believe the propaganda lies from two decades ago.

Kinzinger represented my district and I’m not a huge fan or anything but he’s basically what I would want the Republican Party to be. He’s your typical tax cuts and deregulation, fiscal conservative (voted for Trump tax cuts and to repeal the Affordable Care Act) but is pretty moderate on most social issues, a very vocal critic of Trump & MAGA Republicans, and was one of the most bipartisan members of the Hosue.

1 of 14 House Republicans to vote for Safer Communities Act

1 of 13 House Republicans to vote for Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act

1 of 24 House Republicans to vote for CHIPS & Science Act

1 of 34 House Republicans to vote for Honoring our PACT Act

1 of 3 House Republicans to vote for Ensuring Access to Abortion Act

1 of 8 House Republicans to vote for Right to Contraceptives Act

1 of 47 House Republicans to vote for Respect for Marriage Act

1 of 10 House Republicans to vote to impeach Trump

1 of 35 House Republicans to vote in favor of January 6 Commission

1 of 11 House Republicans to vote to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene of committee assignments

Supports Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals

Supports continued aid to Ukraine

Called for Matt Gaetz to resign when he was being investigated for child trafficking charges

1. Iraq had chemical weapons before 1991. The UN destroyed the facilities and the stockpiles. https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap6_annxB.html">Cia.gov

https://web.archive.org/web/20060831021659/https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap6_annxB.html

In 1999, the UN did not believe that Iraq had any chemical weapons remaining, and even moreso did not believe they had any ability to recreate those.

2. Bush claimed that Iraq had a massive stockpile of biological weapons.

Knew that there were no nuclear weapons, and yet framed it as an uncertainty.  There was no intelligence confirming that there were any weapons. 

3. Yes, because the UN spent years investigating Iraq and destroyed any stockpiles and facilities that they could find. 

4. No one is saying that Saddam was a good person. But the war killed some 100's of thousands. There was probably a better way to go about it.