Probably all bored of this... but humour me.
The Iraq War... what a mess. What I'd like to know is what your position is in hindsight before the war started. Let's say Bush and Blair decided not to treat us like children and explained that they knew Saddam had nothing to do with 911, that they weren't sure about WMD and sold the war as a humanitarian mission. Let's exclude tactics on the ground, Guantanamo, Fallujah, war profiteers and dodgy contractors - though by all means talk about that if you want. but ultimately I want to know if you would support a war to overthrow a broken back dictator like Saddam even if you knew what we know now, not how the war was carried out but the real reasons for going in, and if not would there be any conditions in which you would support regime change?
The Ba'ath party regime - very brutal, Saddam, a sadist, a megalomaniac, a huge fan of Hitler and Stalin. Iran - the Islamic revolution and this Khomeini fella rub America and Saddam up the wrong way. So America and a bunch of other westerners start arming Saddam to the teeth and encouraging him to take on Iran... stating that they would be a push-over, or something along those lines I'm paraphrasing here. Iran turns out to be a tough cookie, and the war is a horrible 9 years, both countries suffering millions of casualties. Neither country could claim victory and America decides - first because Saddam was using biochemical weapons (and therefore not playing by the rules) and because Saddam invades Kuwait, to stop Saddam. Saddam is crushed, the people revolt, Saddam kills some 300,000 of them - seemingly venting frustration and confirming who's boss.
Fast forward to march 2003 the invasion begins after 9/11 attacks, on the premise that Saddam probably has WMD. Now... there was no weapons, and not much evidence to that effect, other than the fact that America and Britain knew he had the materials... because apparently they had sold them to him during the Iran war. During the invasion materials are "being looted" and transported across the border into Jordan, and to a destination unknown. The war has radicalized the region more than ever. Which stands to reason, when bombs are reigning down and innocent people are getting blown up, Osamas teachings start to sound much more profound, the invasion is used as powerful propaganda.
There's so many discrepancies, the mind boggles. But aside from that Saddam and the Ba'ath parties' regime are violating human rights everyday, Saddam's people live in perpetual fear. Similar to the atrocities occurring under Bashar in Syria, it's hard for the international community to watch and not advocate "regime change". (But, that's not how the war was sold) Hence the argument for going in with the premise that Saddam has to go regardless of WMD uncertainty, the fact that we armed him in the first place, or radicalisation of the area, the oil aspect etc.
It seems to me all we have left to justify the war is the cruelty displayed by Saddam... is that enough?
Is it the war itself that was wrong or the way it was sold and carried out?