Saddam Hussein has been one of the most destructive dictators of the twentieth century. He has held a people with the resources to be the richest country in the Middle East back into poverty and ignorance. Hussein is known to have murdered Shi'a clerics, executed 2,500 since 1997, destroyed over 3,000 Kurdish villages, and used the largest amount of chemical weapons on any civilian population in the history of the world, all in an effort to maintain his control over the country. During his Iranian war Hussein is accused of executing thousands of Iranian prisoners, as well as using gases on the front lines. Hussein refused to spend any money made during the oil for food campaign on food. 40% of the money was spent on medicine and humanitarian aides, the other 60% was spent on the massive Iraqi military. Instead of spending money on medicines and vaccines for children Saddam spent $6 million on a Gamma knife, a special operating scalpel, and a MRI was purchased for $4 million. These expansive pieces of medical products are only used by the higher ups in the Iraqi government, not on the poor and wretched civilian population.
America has been accused of invading Iraq simply for its oil, and perhaps the American love for sheer destruction and death. Oil was one of many concerns the country took into consideration when contemplating war. To think or say otherwise would be willful ignorance. But was this war fought primarily for the oil? Wouldn't it have been far easier and less expensive for the American government to make a deal with Saddam for cheap oil? Wouldn't a backdoor deal been less of a hassle then sending in over two hundred thousand American soldiers, liberating a large country, conducting war on one of the largest armies in the world, and taking American casualties in large numbers? There were dozens of possible reasons to invade which were carefully looked over by the administration. Iraq's humanitarian record, the above mentioned grievances, and its destruction of the local environment to create revenue for the government. Freedom from the Iraqi people, oppressed by a ruthless dictator, is a worthy cause to fight for their freedom even if there were no WMD's
Morally, isn't the United States also justified to invade Iraq? Now, it can be said that war isn't moral, and nothing but a tool to create death, but aren't some wars justified? World War II was certainly justified, as was the Civil War. Both served a higher purpose then just the random destruction of peaceful countryside. Not only was the war on Iraq the most civilian orientated war ever fought (fought with the best interest of the civilian population in mind, i.e. smart weapons, reliable intelligence reports, with the intent to draw the military away from population centers, and keeping the infrastructure of the country together as much as possible.) but it was fought with the intent to liberate an oppressed population. Wouldn't it be morally wrong to sit back and allow a dictator to execute political prisoners and plunder an otherwise wealthy country? Or is peace the only virtue worth having? Now some will cite the United States governments compliance with Saddam in the eighties as hypocrisy, which it can be easily mistaken for. In fact the United States only supported Saddam because of his war with Iran at the time. He was seen as the lesser of two evils against another ruthless theocracy that was trying to subvert the entire Middle East. At the time supporting Iraq was justified as Iran had a worse human rights record and was bent on establishing theocracies through out the third world. Even now Iranian Clerics are working to undermine the US occupation of Iraq.
The truth is the war on Iraq was justified and its justifications were heralded by the leaders of the current US administration. WMD's are in Iraq because Saddam's used them before. We will find them, its only a matter of time. Perhaps during the length of time the US spent trying to convince the rest of the world that Iraq was a threat and a menace Saddam moved the weapons of mass destruction out of country, into Syria, Lebanon, and the hands of Al-Queda. Even if Saddam wasn't conclusively linked to Osama Bin Laden, it is known that he committed acts of terrorism against the United States, most notably the attempt on former President Bush's life, making Saddam Hussein a terrorist as well as a dictator. Think for a moment...forgetting all of America's past transgressions, its mistakes and its successes, its defeats and victories, its culture, history and heritage, was the War on Iraq, just the war, not those who committed it, justified? I think you'll find the answer is yes.
* A quick footnote to Raekwon the Kid, Its not ironic that we fought the war for WMD's as we used no WMD's is response. A Weapon of Mass Destruction is what its name implies, a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon that kills hundreds of thousands or even millions of civilians and soldiers alike. Whether or not the US intelligence was faulty has yet to be determined by anyone. Neither Britain nor America own the Iraqi oil fields, it is the Iraqi people who own them. I don't see Exxon putting up any rigs yet. I believe it is you, sir, who are being highly inaccurate. Next time don't act as if I am the slick evil Republican when reviewing my works.