Make up your mind, Joey...first you claim Saddam wasn't trying to obtain nukes (which is laughably incorrect) and then you state that if he was it isn't a big deal? You don't have a clue...do you?
Except we invaded the country and found no evidence of anything on the nuke program after 1991. Again, invading the country was a terrible idea. Even if he had a nuke, what was he going to do with it? Use in on Israel? Well, no great loss, but the Zionists would have glassed his country if he did.
We chose to exclude anyone who was in the Baathist Party from holding positions in the military or the police. The problem with that is twofold...first, you've gotten rid of the two stabilizing forces in Iraq (which makes it easier for groups like ISIS to gather power) and secondly those Baathist's that were removed from their positions became the prime pool that ISIS recruited from in Iraq. Leaving them intact as a party but with their leadership removed would have been the intelligent way to go.
Isn't that like saying we should have left the Nazi Party intact in Germany in 1945? But I do notice you avoided the question- How was the Baathist Party going to maintain control over the NON-Baathist Shi'ite/Kurd majority without the military we had just smashed? You see, this is the reason Bush Senior didn't go to Baghdad in 1991. He had hoped the Ba'athists would over throw Saddam and they'd make a deal with them.
Instead, America overthrew his ass, until his slacker son stole the election.