And that's like saying 'there was at least some argument for Putin having security concerns about Ukraine for invading'.
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and began massing troops along the Saudi border. He possessed chemical weapons and used them on his own citizens. I personally know two people who lived through the Halabja massacre - you can look it up online if you wish. I know you're not making the argument that Zelensky and Hussein are exactly the same, but in a way, that's what your argument amounts to. The only reason we didn't topple Hussein's regime in 1990 is because H.W. Bush's team was smart enough to figure out that it was a can of worms we didn't want to open. None of this necessarily makes the 2003 invasion 'right' or 'legal' or 'just', but it does properly nuance the history in a way your black/white parallels of Putin/Ukraine and Bush/Iraq does not.
Listen. Since you apparently don't know the history.
Oh I knew it was coming. Go ahead and Bernie-splain "history" to me, lol. This oughtta be good.
Bush wanted to be a 'war president' and he picked Iraq for his own reasons. It had nothing to do with WMD or Saddam being nasty to his people.
Bush absolutely had his own motivations and they weren't necessarily tied to Hussein's human rights violations - I'll agree with that. Moreover, his cabinet was full of right wing neo-conservatives who were part of a think tank called the Project for a New American Century, or PNAC for short. Among their interests and concerns were (at least in my view & recollection):
* securing control of Iraq's petroleum reserves
* setting up a military and political operation in close proximity to Iran
* protecting US dollar dominance of global commodities markets, and,
* 'defending' Israel from two enemies (Hussein and the Ayatollah)
No, Bush's motives weren't clean - I get all that. Still, Hussein was a murderous thug. There was a rationale for taking him out and replacing him with a democratically-elected government. That doesn't mean it was necessarily a legal or a wise thing to do, but again, it's ridiculous to compare Putin's prosecution of the war in Ukraine to Bush's war in Iraq. The parallels begin and end at unauthorized invasion and occupation.
Once Bush, as president, decided that, his large team looked for how to 'sell' the war to the American people. One of the participants frickin wrote an article describing this process. They then came up with the idea of WMD as a justification for the war and ordered the administration to serve that message. That included arm-twisting at the CIA, manipulating the press, attacking Joe Wilson, and much more.
Yep, I don't disagree that individuals on his team twisted the truth, particularly Cheney and George Tenet. They were both mother****ers. I think it's less clear, though, what GWB actually knew and believed as fact. You'd have to be a mind reader to do that, which nobody here is.
Bush's justifications for the war had no more honesty than Putin's claims to be de-Nazifying Ukraine. They had to play along with some things like pretending to care what the UN inspectors would learn; when the inspectors were about to find there were no WMD the administration moved up the invasion schedule by months and ordered them out of Iraq before they could finish.
I think the underlying problem in dealing with Saddam Hussein is similar to the one we now face with Vladimir Putin. When you're dealing with someone who shows total disregard for territorial integrity, national sovereignty, human rights, and international law, even after hostilities cease, how do you deal with that problem? That problem doesn't just go away. Once sanctions are over, a regime can rearm.
That was not Bush's motive any more than Putin's motive is his claim to protect people in Ukraine. The parallels are far stronger than you think.
Fair enough, I can accept that.
I'm not saying they're 100% - yes, Saddam was a terrible dictator while Zelensky is far different - but that's not the relevant issue in judging the wars are illegal and war crimes.
In judging legality? Fair point, even though we may disagree on the nuances.
In judging war crimes? Absolutely disagree with you on that one. Bush is not a war criminal. That's just ultra-left backpacking, granola-munching bullshit.