To some, the war in Iraq is unjustified because the United States did not find weapons of mass destruction, which was their reasoning for invading Iraq. But due to Saddam Hussein’s numerous human rights violations, the threat he posed to the stability of the Middle East, and the chemical weapons he used and produced during the first Gulf War, I personally feel eliminating any of these three things, if not all, justifies the invasion of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein saw the Kurd’s living in Iraq as a threat to his administration and the oppression and eventual elimination of them was one of his top priorities. One of Hussein’s early slaughters involved the killing of 148 residents after Shiite militants made an attempt to assassinate him. Hussein’s most infamous genocidal affair was when he ordered the killing of every human and animal in particular regions of the Kurdish north. After this was said and done, roughly 182,000 people were killed. When a human being capable of such destruction is taken out of power, a war that sees this loss of power is justified.
Regardless of whether or not Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the country posed a threat to the stability of the Middle East. Any country that does what Iraq did to Kuwait poses a threat. Particularly since the man who authorized it was still in power at the time of the United States invasion. Furthermore, since the overthrow of Iraq’s Hussein run government, relations between Iran and Iraq have grown stronger which will hopefully lead to stronger relations among Iraq and other Middle East countries.
Clearly the United States invaded Iraq under the notion that the country had weapons of mass destruction, but the information the United States knew about Iraq’s chemical weapons was not used under this notion. Therefore, despite whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, the United States could have used the information about the chemical weapons as reason for invasion. This information...