Iraq War-Justification So much has already been said about Iraq War and the grave error that United States made by invading Iraq that it seems absurd to even suggest that this war was justified. But we must not ignore both sides of the coin. We have already discussed the anti-war arguments and have come to believe that serious judgment errors were made when United States, Britain and Australia agreed to launch military attacks against Iraq. Its now high time we looked deeper into some of the reasons Iraq was invaded to decide for ourselves whether our government did the right thing or not.

To start with, let us consider the scene in Iraq had the war not been launched. Saddam Hussein would still be the President, ruling the country with an iron hand and simply stopping at nothing. He took pride in not paying any heed to international codes and regulations and ignored UN laws on many occasions. Despite the fact that there were probably no weapons of Mass destruction found in Iraq, we do have enough evidence to believe that such weapons could be developed since Saddam administration possessed enough chemical and biological intelligence. In his public testimony, David Kay, U.S. weapon expert did agree that there were no WMD found in Iraq but we need to read his extended views to understand why the war was waged in the first place and why it was justified. Kay argued that despite the fact that WMD turned out to be a hollow scare, there is reason to believe that Saddam would have used his knowledge of chemical and biological weapons to restart germ and gas warfare programs.

I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought. I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than...

The Saddam regime had to be toppled because his disctatorship was becoming more of a liablity for the internatyional community since Saddamsimply refsued to abide by the international laws. He was consistently amassing dangerous knowledge about development of sophiticated weapons but refused to report his activities.
In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had. We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material." (Kay testimony: 2004)

We must not forget that with Iraq possessing the capability to develop dangerous lethal weapons, the terrorists groups around the world would have gained easy access to this knowledge as well. They were willing to pay the price to acquire the intelligence required to develop biological weapons and with Iraq acting as the breeding ground of terrorists, this information would have sooner or later leaked out to all terrorist groups in the world making the potential victims even more vulnerable.

Saddam Hussein's removal as head of the state is in itself a great achievement as is clear from David Kay's testimony. The man was ruthless in his ambitions and he would have turned out to be another Hitler had America and its allies not decided to launch military attack. Many critics argue that Saddam could have been contained and war wasn't necessary. But they must be…