The United States had no right to invade Iraq.

Ok, my opponent barley put any burden on me, so ill put my own negation burden: All I have to do is prove a justified entrance, using international law as my basis. Case: I. The United States had clear authority under international law to use force against Iraq under the past circumstances. The legal authority to use force to address Iraq's material breaches is clear. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. A 'material breach' of the cease-fire conditions is the predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that Iraq is in 'material breach' of its obligations, as the Council reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441." II. The point is that this document [UNMOVIC March 2003 Report] conclusively shows that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture these kinds of weapons, that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture not only chemical but biological weapons, and that Iraq had and still has literally tens of thousands of delivery systems, including increasingly capable and dangerous unmanned aerial vehicles. Also, British intelligence reports claimed that Iraq was buliding nucelar weapons. Furthermore, the justification of nuclear weapons wasn't that they HAD them, it was the POTENTIAL to have them. III. It is fashionable to sneer at the moral case for liberating an Iraqi people long brutalized by Saddam's rule. Critics insist mere oppression was not sufficient reason for war, and in any case that it was not Bush's reason. In fact, of course, it was one of Bush's reasons, and the moral and humanitarian purpose provided a compelling reason for a war to remove Saddam... For the people of Iraq, the war put an end to three decades of terror and suffering. The mass graves uncovered since the end of the war are alone sufficient justification for it. more then 100,000 Kurds were found dead because of gas chambers. Ok, this violates the genocide clause of the UN, i.e. a member country of the Security Council has right to use force to end genocide, since it violates international law. IV. The fact is that Iraq's weapons did pose a grave threat to international peace and security. It was in recognition of their singular menace, that the United Nations security council unanimously passed Security Council Resolution 1441. We also have to differentiate between the threat posed by Iraq and other would-be proliferators. No other country shares Iraq's history of deploying chemical weapons in a war of aggression against a neighbor, or against innocent civilians as part of a genocidal campaign. V. If Iraq were to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction it could threaten regional stability and deter any potential military action against Iraq. Hussein and his government believe that it was their possession of chemical and biological weapons that deterred the Coalition Forces from invading Iraq during Desert Storm. A WMD capable Iraq would become a regional hegemony. VI.A democratic Iraqi government would help with the Middle East peace process. Moderate Iraqi regime would discourage militants and boost the credibility of moderate Palestinians who are interested in peace. Iraq financially supports the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, a change of regime could bring an end to this practice. Stat: Sectarian Violence has decreased 70%.