> 1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11....He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. Iraq's official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.
> 2) The threat of renewed aggression by Saddam was more troubling and urgent after 9/11.
> 3) To contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years.
> 4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger. The U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones were routinely under enemy fire, and a larger confrontation – over Kuwait again or some other issue – appeared virtually certain to arise
And probably the biggest factor:
> 5) America after 9/11 had a lower tolerance for such dangers.
But let's just ignore history and claim that there was no other impetus for war other than making accusations that turned out to be false.
But somehow, american still speak about "fighting for freedom" and act as if they're the "good guys", while they go and destroy another middle eastern country.