"Speculating on what would have happened if events had been different is nothing to do with hindsight though is it?"

Who said it had? my remark was aimed at your:

"We do know that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction."

And in the run up to the invasion of March 2003 we most certainly did not know whether he had them or not but according to the UNSCOM report it was highly likely that he did have them. The invasion and subsequent actions were to make sure proof positive that Iraq had no WMD, had no active WMD programmes and had no means of delivering WMD - in other words ensure and verify that Iraq complied with the Safwan Ceasefire terms and conditions, and establish once and for all beyond doubt that Iraq posed no threat to its neighbours in the region.

Now this is speculation on my part Gnome - but had no action been taken against Iraq in 2003:

1: By the summer of 2003 UN sanctions against Iraq would have been lifted at the instance of Russia and France.

2: Iraq would have rearmed using oil to pay off its debts to Russia, China and France

3: In 2004 Saddam would have got wind of Iran's nuclear weapons programme

4: By late 2005 we would have seen the second Iran/Iraq War which would have been much bloodier than the first one - with a bit of luck it might have just about finished with Iran coming out as victors

There would no way on God's earth that Saddam Hussein would have ever sat back and allowed Iran to develop any sort of nuclear capability.

All speculation.

Whereas the problems that would have faced Great Britain in 1914 as a result of a German victory over France and Belgium are most definitely not - as all components had been clearly stated and their consequences recognised, which is why Great Britain entered the war to honour its obligations under the Treaty of London 1839 - it was in Great Britain's best interest to do so.