The real reasons - according to Little Hawk were:

1. To punish Saddam Hussein for daring to sell Iraqi oil in Euros in the early 2000's, rather than in US Dollars...and to further punish him for having failed to take out Iran in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, and for having then attempted to take Kuwaiti oil, after which he became "expendable" to America since he was no longer a useful and compliant tool of American policy. He had become, in effect, another Manuel Noriega. Once a very handy dictator and local ally...now an embarrassing liability.

I do not think that anyone could give a toss what Saddam Hussein sold Iraqi oil for in terms of currency, Iraq was not that significant a player - up until the invasion of Kuwait he had traded Iraqi oil for weapons ~94% of which he got from in descending order of magnitude Russia, France and China. So that reason is a load of baloney

The "Superpowers" helped both sides in the Iran/Iraq War as nobody wanted either side to win. The war ended in the stalemate everybody in the international community wanted it to.

2. To get control of Iraqi oil by USA and British corporations (the main original reason Britain went in there and took over Iraq in the first place after WWI ended and the Turkish Empire collapsed).

Well that most certainly did not happen, Iraq's oil still belongs to the same owners it has always belonged to - Iraq. The exploration, development and operating licences awarded by the Iraqi Government went to the national oil companies of Iraq's traditional trading partners Russia, France and China. They get paid so much per barrel to produce it, they do not own the oil. Most deals cut have been pegged to commitments to increased field production and if those production targets are not met then the operating oil companies do not get paid a penny for what they do produce. So so much for taking control of Iraq's oil

3. To extend the Anglo-American-Israeli empire into one more nation.

Wasn't aware that such an Empire ever existed - another figment of Little Hawk's imagination, but as a reason it is complete and utter crap.

4. To establish a strong military presence and base of operations directly to the west of the main future target for conquest: Iran.

As far as I am aware there is no strong US military presence or any US bases located in Iraq. Last US soldier left Iraq on the 18th December 2011.

5. The final and key reason was one more logical step in the encirclement of Iran...its ultimate purposes being to cause regime change in Iran, set up a client (puppet) government there, and get full western control of the marketing of Iranian oil...the last major piece of Middle Eastern oil to be taken over by the Anglo-American-Israeli empire.

Let's see now the encirclement of Iran?

Azerbaijan the Caspian and Turkmenistan to the North - No US presence.
Iraq to the West - No US presence.
Pakistan and Afghanistan to the East - US presence inside Afghanistan but I think those guys are busy with other fish to fry and by December 2014 they will be gone
Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf and the United Arab Emirates to the South - US base in Bahrain which has been there since the British left it in 1972

Rather a poor job of encirclement don't you think? Regime change will occur inside Iran without any assistance from the outside world.

Oh and of course it must be to get control of Iran's oil just like they got control of Iraq's you mean? I dare say it all might appear plausible to some gullible idiot until of course you look at how little of its daily dose of oil the USA gets from this region.

The actual reason Iraq was invaded and Saddam was removed? To ensure proof positive that the country was disarmed in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 687 and that it no longer posed a threat to the peace and stability of the region.

Was it the right thing to do - YES it was.

Could it have been handled better - Most certainly.