ulterior motives of iraq war

one thing that always gets in my crawl is when republicans say "is the world better off without saddam in power" (as a secondary justification for war, since the original reason of wmd's was so utterly a false justification) so what if he didnt have wmds, should we have waited for him to reconstitute his programs for masss destruction. being that intelligence was wrong and probablly even manipulated, intentionally, in the other direction, at least we removed a dangerous threat to the safety of the world they say. so what if saddam didnt have wmd's, would we be better off if if saddam was in power. well hell yes. instead of using our troops there, since bush was hell bent on getting reelected and using a war to do so, we should have gone after a more pressing threat, warred with a country that was actually involved with 9-11 or a country that was a known breeding ground for terroism like syria, or iran or even saudia arabia. if were goiing to be in the bussiness of pre-emptive strikes then wouldnt syria be just a rational as target if not more than iraq. i mean if bush is so stead fast and has such conviction then why not wasr with countries like syria or iran, who are currnetly giving us teh middle finger, and by all accounts, not including syria, currently moments away from getting nucleur bombs or in the case of north korea already have the bomb. why? becuase there were specific ulterior motives for making invading iraq and they had nothing to do with national security. ill give 3 plausible ulterior reasons, breifly. 1) haliburton and dick-ly chaney. 2) bush and familial oedipal strivings{see mauren dowd}. 3) iraq was to all rational judgement an easy target, weakend by over a decade of containment, thru sanctions. not so perhaps to the other axis of evil countries. to me the 1 is the most easily to play with. cheny(haliburton) saw an easy profit and with 9-11 saw an justifiable reason to attach to their oppurtunistic greedy hearts. iraq is a wasr of profit and nothing besides. nietzsche once said 'a good cause justifies a war, nay a war justifies a good cause' or something to that affect. cheny, haliburton, hell bush himself a oil man, wanted iraq oil fields. iraq wasnt a training ground for terrorist they were well contained and crippled, this was a fact known. iraq was the last of the axis of evil when it came to the means or capabilities of causing trouble or posing a threat to national security. the degree of ability, to be a threat to us was far less than countries like north korea or iran. the threat had to be manufactured by forged documents and media manipulations. ndeed rove and cheney played us perfectly. would we be better off id saddam was in power. hell yes cause then the resources we hace squandered in destroying a phantom threat could have been used to invade and destroy a real threat like iran or syria. why didnt we war with them instead. ulterior motives. bush has weakend us. why dont people accept that, not just the 62 percent of the peole who now think the iraq engagement was bad move, but everybody. open ur fucking eyes.