It depends on which Iraq war they mean. Most people your age and under typically mean the second war, when the US did invade Iraq.

But yes, the first time it was Iraq that was the belligerent and invaded Kuwait.

You can’t disentangle the two like that. If you posit that the first gulf war was justified, you’re 90% of the way to justifying the second. The intelligence was that Iraq was rearming. If your position is that the U.S. would’ve had to intervene in the event Iraq invaded a neighbor again, then it doesn’t seem unreasonable to invade preemptively to avoid a potentially costlier conflict.

That's not the reason we used for invading, though.

This thread's corrections to my getting history wrong are just showing how disingenuous you are.

You’re the one who doesn’t know the history of mistaken american wars in the 20th century and I’m the one being disingenuous?

How do you distinguish Korea, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War from Ukraine? And I suppose your only quibble about the Iraq War is that we should’ve waited until Saddam invaded another neighbor, like he did the first time?

I admit when I'm wrong. You don't. That's one way you're being disingenuous.