The Iraq War was justified

Let me begin by putting the Iraq War into context.Almost one and a half million Iraqi people have died (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org...). That in and of itself makes it almost twice as bad as the genocide in Rwanda (http://en.wikipedia.org...).4,488 Americans have died, and an estimated 100,000 wounded (http://antiwar.com...). The cost of the war to the USA and the multinational force numbers in the trillions (http://en.wikipedia.org...).Over four million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes - over 2 million to other parts of Iraq, and over 2 million to Syria or Jordan (http://usliberals.about.com...).Today, the country is in a state of relative political discord, while insurgent attacks continue to tear apart the homes of ordinary Iraqi families (http://en.wikipedia.org...).All this was directly caused by the war.War is never justifiedThe principle justification that my opponent tried to use was that Saddam and/or Iraq were really bad, making the presumption that America and war are really good. My contention is that war is actually really bad in and of itself, such that the statement "war is good" is in fact self-refuting (I object to America being really good as well, but I have not the space to articulate that in this debate). But there's a second presumption here too - that the need to defend against a threat (either for oneself or on behalf of a another party) justifies creating a threat for the other party. This doctrine, that defence justifies attack, means that every attack is in fact justified, for every attack has a defender. But if Saddam was justified, then none of my opponent's reasons for going to war hold true. Therefore, aggresive retaliatory action cannot be justified as a response to a threat.More importantly, however, war is itself a moral wrong. It is contradictory to conclude that the statistics I quoted at the start of this round are bad, and that war is good. However, there are few who would say justice is bad, as the very word has a subjective positive association. Therefore, the idea of a "just" or a "good" war is an oxymoron. I should add that these are only the aggregate, measurable aspects of war. The families that are torn apart, the lives that are shattered, the destruction of buildings, be they homes or heritage sites, the misery and emotion, the psychological impact on the soldiers, dreams lost and fanatacism built.Beyond the moral cost of war, there is also another tacit presumption that war actions are in fact, absolutely and objectively, classifiable as "good" or "bad". A war without moral value cannot be morally justified. What if, for instance, Al Qaeda considered America bad and themselves good? In their eyes, fighting a war against America would be "justified". Denying moral relativism in the causes of war is essentially the presumption that one is right, because at least one side must be fighting for a cause they know is bad. In fact, Al Qaeda thinks exactly what I just described (http://technorati.com...), but even if they didn't, the notion of a justified war necessitates a standard of justice that cannot be shown to exist, nor can it be properly presumed.War cannot therefore be justified morally. This is significant because justice is fundamentally a moral value. It is also the most important point in this debate because all of my opponent's points presume it, even as they attempt to prove it (the idea that war can be justified is required to show a justification, so it is presumed that war can be justified in order to show that a given war is justified, which in turn proves that war must be justifiable). Unfortunately, such an assertive case, without any causal connection between the harm and the remedy, cannot be allowed to stand.Charges Against Saddam HusseinMy opponent alleges that Saddam Hussein:* Protected somebody wanted by another government from extradition* Gave money to groups linked to harming the interests of another government, including their people* Plotted to blow up locations in a foreign country* Would have led to genocide of less than a quarter of a million people* Took an interest in weapons technologyEven if all of this were true, that would be a good reason to indict him in the ICC and give him a trial, with the oppertunity to present his own evidence. In fact, at the trial of Saddam Hussein after the war, "witnesses" were forced to testify and told what to say (some reported being tortured), judges were replaced reportedly because they did not favor US interests, several of the best defence lawyers were either ejected from the court or killed, numerous witnesses argued for Saddam's innocence on all charges (http://news.bbc.co.uk...), perhaps most damagingly, he was tried under laws the US had just largely made up for the purposes of the trial (http://www.washingtonpost.com...). If the war was really justified by the need to give this guy his day in court, then you would have expected the conquering nation to actually give him his day in court. This did not happen, and thus it cannot have been a justification.That the United States disagreed with Saddam's political decisions is neither a reason for going to war, nor is it justified legally (http://www.yale.edu...) or morally. To put this in an understandable context, it's like if the UK invaded Ecuador for keeping Julian Assange. Giving money to terrorist groups is indeed reprehensible, but this is like China invading the United States for helping fund militants in Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Beyond that it's a lie - Saddam Hussein did not trust Al Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Plotting to blow up another country is exactly what the United States did in plotting to invade Iraq. If anything, the invasion of Iraq seems to justify this. The same goes for the genocide. If the only alternative to ongoing dictatorship was war, and we agree deaths should be minimised, then even with your source's extreme estimates Iraq would be better off today under Saddam Hussein. Naturally genocide is a terrible crime, but then again, so is war. Weapons technology interest does not prove an intention for production, and is not a crime anywhere. I myself am interested in weapons (and how they might be safely disposed of), but that is no reason to invade my country.Terrorists KilledThe presumption here is that terrorists were in Iraq before the war and not created because of it. In fact, zero US citizens (or Europeans, surprisingly) have died due to Islamic terrorism since 9/11, and virtually no terrorist attacks were in Iraq before the invasion (http://www.loonwatch.com...). The conclusion that the United States has in fact created the very problem you claim they are solving (through, I should add, killing more people) is also backed up by academic research (http://www.motherjones.com...) and even by the US government (http://www.alternet.org... and http://www.washingtonpost.com...). This argument can therefore be dismissed as a mere confusion of cause and effect.ConclusionWhat my opponent really needs to prove in this debate is not only that he can assert his beliefs as to what the justification for the war might have been, but also prove that this justification is in fact both a justification for war, and in fact a logically and factually sound justification. War is an evil, and no rhetoric of justice can mask that fact.