The Second Gulf War (Iraq war) can be defended

I acknowledge my opponents zeal for wanting to stop needless suffering not only in Iraq, but worldwide, it is a noble desire. And I'm not against humanitarian aid when needed. My gripe is with my opponents want to go to war to "save" people, and my opponents view that we should give our military a blank check to do with it what they like. What's so humanitarian about war? The unfortunate situations that the US caused in Iran in the early 50s was, and still is relevant to the second Iraq war and still is today. The US intervention policy since WW2 has proven to be costly and ineffective. Both economically, and in measure of lives lost. Korea (still ongoing), Vietnam, Iran (still ongoing), Iraq (still ongoing) are economic wounds that the people of the US are still paying for. In the case of our involvement in the middle east, it has proven to be one misstep after the other, and each step seems to have needed further involvement to try and rectify an already bad situation. Maybe someday we will realize that our involvement was the problem in the first place. If my opponent wants to go save people from suffering, so long as it's done of my opponents own accord and only with my opponents money then, on a moral basis, there's nothing I can do about it, However, if my opponent expects that I have to help him/her financially or militarily, then my opponent is being immoral. When people impose their "clarion call" on others, they're being immoral. Like I said, I'm not against humanitarian aid, but if I need to worry about possibly being drafted then I'm no longer gonna feel like I'm in a generous mood anymore. Ask the people of Korea, Vietnam, Iran, or Iraq how humanitarian the US has been to them. Hint, if most the people in the country you're trying to help, don't like the "help" you've done for them, then you probably shouldn't have gotten involved. Remember, Don Quixote is satirical, not to be taken literally! Again, my opponent chooses to reference an outdated and discredited document for his/her argument on WMDs. The Iraq survey group went into Iraq, and with red faces they had to admit to the whole world that they did not find the WMD they were looking for, or the processing plants needed to make them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org.... Iraq's WMD program was a fraud. Either the argument to go to war was based off of faulty evidence, or it was a lie. My opponent has not, and will not find any solid evidence that Iraq was trying to build nuclear weapons. The evidence is on my side, and it shows that after the first Iraq war, the Iraqi government had no means to even imagine building nuclear weapons. They had NOTHING!!!!! Joint agreements with Russia to build a nuclear power plant in Iraq in the late 50s is not evidence of a nuclear weapons program, it was simply a business venture for the Russians to make money. The uranium needed to run a power plant is not sufficient for weapons, further enrichment would have been needed and Iraq didn't posses that ability. Furthermore, Iraq would not have been in control of the nuclear power plant, the Russians were. My opponents claims that Iraq intended to continue its weapons program as soon as sanctions were lifted is also not backed by solid evidence, it's only based off hearsay. Former Iraqi officials testified to hearing Saddam Hussein say that about the sanctions.