Почитай статью одного сторонника войны - там исчерпывающий ответ на твои пафос.
С английским у тебя вроде нормально, лень переводить
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/goldstein_may13.html
"...Writing in the New York Times recently, Thomas Friedman eloquently made the case - gaining increasing popularity among war supporters in the absence of any WMD finds to date - that Saddam's atrocities alone justified war...Friedman observed: "As far as I'm concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war. That skull, and the thousands more that will be unearthed, are enough for me. Bush doesn't owe the world any explanation for missing chemical weapons (even if it turns out that the White House hyped this issue)...True, but beside the point.
If invading brutal regimes was enough to justify pre-emptive war, the list would be never-ending. The U.S. even supports some of those regimes. But the reason it gave for going to war in Iraq was to disarm it of thousands of gallons of unaccounted for anthrax and thousands of tons of VX nerve gas, botulinin, ricin, Sarin and mustard gas, along with the capabilities to develop and deliver them...the bottom line remains that for the sake of American - and Bush's - credibility, evidence of Iraq's WMD program must be found, or the inevitable conclusion will be, at best, that U.S. intelligence gathering was incompetent, and at worst, that the Bush administration lied to provoke a war."
LORRIE GOLDSTEIN -- Toronto Sun