The Second Gulf War (Iraq war) can be defended

The history of the second Iraq war stretches further back than both the first Iraq war, and the Iran-Iraq war. It's no secret that the United States(among other western countries and the Soviet Union) financially and logistically aided Iraq during their war with Iran. Anybody who claims that the United States aided Iraq for any reason other than getting back at Iran for the hostage situation is either ignorant of the facts, or has an ulterior motive for their justifications (I'm speaking in general, not insinuating my opponent in any way!). I think the rub comes from my opponent's justification of the second Iraq war. I feel my opponent would need to justify the first Iraq war, AND the aid that the United States, France, and the Soviet Union gave to Iraq during their war with Iran. If we want to split hairs (which I do), my opponent would need to justify the coup the United States staged in Iran (circa 1953) which overthrew the democratically elected prime minister and put in a western friendly shah. https://www.theguardian.com.... The second Iraq war was just another saga in an ongoing sequence of events the United States, France, "Great"Briton, and the Soviet Union used to finance war for profit. These wars were not for the benefit of anybody except for companies with military contracts. I will ask my opponent how he/she can financially, morally, and logically justify the United States aiding a country that used chemical weapons on the Iranian military and Iranian civilians, only to turn and declare war on the very country they aided, within five years time? This is an obvious case of war just for the sake of financial gains for companies with military contracts! I'm not sure if my opponent has stock in boeing, but if I were a betting man/woman, I wouldn't consider it a long shot if he/she did. I don't know if any of you ever read Don Quixote, but I believe most people misinterpret it's true meaning because it was meant to be hyperbolic. It was not meant to be taken literally. If we as freedom loving citizens are expected to come to the aid of some other oppressed people every time someone cries poverty, then we cease to be free. Of course the images of gassed out villages makes us ashamed to be human, and to know that humans are capable of such egregious horrors, but we can't fight everyone's battles. The moment we got involved with middle eastern politics, we entered into an ongoing sequence that can only prove to propagate more wars. It's a little peculiar how my opponent only brought up the "humanitarian" argument when talking about Saddam Husseins gassing of Iraqi citizens, but relocates the gassing of Iranian civilians to his/her argument of WMD's. Or perhaps it's not peculiar, it was calculated. It would be against the best interest of my opponent to point that out. Whyyyyyy? Because when Saddam Hussein had the support of the US, France, and the Soviet Union he was gassing Iranians. How's my opponents "humanitarian" argument going to "morally defend" that fact? I'm not sure if my opponent realises that the "documents" that "prove" Iraq's quest to build WMD's, has been shown to be erroneous and not trustworthy. Under the headline-weapons of mass destruction, we can see that the CIA doubted the accuracy of the documents my opponent calls upon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org.... This, coupled with the fact that no WMD's , or any means to produce them were ever found. The Bush administration began to shift the focus of the rationale for war from WMD's to humanitarian reasons. The WMD argument is soooo outdated and soooo debunked. I would never say that any country is justified when invading other countries, but Iraq did have a reason for invading Kuwait. https://en.m.wikipedia.org.... Kuwait was exceeding it's OPEC quota, which was actually bringing the price of oil down (contrary to my opponents claim), which in turn was making it more difficult for Iraq to make money from their oil output. Iraq was not the only country that was irate at Kuwait for doing that. Furthermore, my opponents claim that Iraq was going to attack Saudi Arabia is merely conjecture, maybe some solid evidence could sway my opinion on that, but not until then. My opponent claims that the war in Iraq went from 2003 to 2011, does he/she not want to discuss the redeployment of troops in 2014? Is the war really over yet? Can my opponent prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the second Iraq war will not lead to yet another war? I assert that my opponent cannot financially, morally, or logically "defend" the second Iraq war!