I know what you're saying and and hopefully the situation will eventaully be far better for the people of Iraq but I think some people rightly question the basis on which one country or group can impose their morality on another
ie *Even if* we can make life better for the oppressed citizens of a country - is it ok for a sovereign democracy to invade and remove the leaders of a sovereign tyranny (and risk harm/death of innocent people in the process)?
It's not a simple dilemma - should the US on the basis of its reasons for invading Iraq not fell an imperative for invading North Korea, China, Cuba, Zimbabwe? I'm not sure the US coalition can excuse their Iraq action on the basis of removing an evil dictator and anyway if there is a large amount of feeling against a particular country shouldn't any military action be done in accordance with an internationally agreed set of rules like the United Nations?
I think removal in the cases of Hitler and Milosovic were justifiable because of the international consensus and the immedicacy of their threat to other nations and ethnic groups - in the case of Iraq it looks much more like Bush had his eye on Saddam even before 9/11 and risked the stability of the world by railroading over international protocol. I think we are still to see the worst consequences of this.
In terms of profiteering from the Iraq war - profits are being made by administration-linked private companies like Brown & Root, Haliburton, who are being paid from public funds - for example if a power contract is awarded it might be given to a private US company and paid for by the US tax payers - it's a neat way for Cheney etc to exchange money into their own companies from the public purse and better still - it's all legal.