Sometimes, wars are necessary (definitions of "just war") has been hammered out by everyone from ancient philosophers to modern day peace activists. In general, in order for a war to be necessary and justified, an aggressor has to be posing an immediate and real threat. Iraq doesn't fit this criteria.
Those fighting for a democratic and free Iraq have been pointing out repression and human rights abuses for a long time (before this year, before September 11th, before the last Gulf War). The USA, Britain and the rest of the western warmongers have never been friends of Iraqi people. In fact, who armed Sadam Hussein in the 1980s?
Oil, geopolitical power, a "stable" dictator in the Middle East are the real aims of those calling for war. Consider the hypocricies and duplicities. What nation is teeming with terrorists, a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism where democracy is non-existent? Saudi Arabia.
The Iraqis want Sadam Hussein disposed of but how do the west liberate the people by killing them? The generals may be casual about deaths and refer to "collateral damage" but people should remember that tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the last war. Yes, there will be more deaths: they will be children going to school, ordinary people at work, at home (just like those in the Twin Towers, Bali and countless other victims of terror acts).
I fear that war is inevitable. Nothing Iraq does in relation to weapons of mass destruction will satisfy US and its allies (it's always been a foregone conclusion). But I was just one of over a million people in London who marched against war a few weeks ago and Bush and Blair will be reminded that while sending troops with the most sophisticated weapons into a poor third world country may be one thing but carrying public opinion in their own country is something else.
All the best on your project Amber
Peace
=-) 
