We did not invade Iraq because Sadam was a danger or to liberate his people.<quoted text>
Not to mention Saddam was a clear and present danger prior to 9/11. The first resolution was as far back as 1986. Prior to 2002, the UN Security Council had passed 16 resolutions.
In January 2003, inspectors discovered 11 empty 122 mm chemical warheads that had not been previously declared by Iraq. Iraq claimed they were old weapons but after performing tests on the warheads, the UN inspectors believed they were new.
Also, inspectors reported the discovery of over 3,000 pages of weapons program documents in the home of an Iraqi citizen suggesting Saddam attempted to "hide" them from inspectors and contradicting his earlier claim that there were no further documents to provide.
A total of 16 Iraqi scientists refused to be interviewed by inspectors with sources saying Saddam had ordered the death of any scientist who spoke with inspectors in private. No scientist confirmed this but, of course, they wouldn't.
The UN Chief Inspector said in February 2003 that he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility."
Taking down Saddam was inevitable.
I even had misgivings at the beginning knowing it was inevitable. But I never understood why - after the crimes against humanity became known - anyone claiming to support human rights - namely, the bleeding heart left - would became so crazy and act like liberating these people was the worst thing that could have happened.
(Sorry about the longwinded post...)
We wet to war because George W Bush said Sadam likely had a nuclear weapon & was selling it to terrorists.