To this I’d say that your moral code appears to value the rights and privilege of one person’s position over many people’s basic human rights

Not quite... but sort of. I'm trying to say that the sovereign rights of a country's leadership (and by extension, of the entire country) are not subject to the wishes and desires of other sovereign nations, unless those other nations are directly threatened or attacked. Any other policy starts us down a very dangerous and slippery slope. If our Iraq policies are justified ("Saddam was a really bad guy who was really mean to his people, so lets go over there and kill him and while we're at it let's blow up the whole damn country"), then why can't other nations decide to knock down a few of our skyscrapers in the name of Allah, and in the process get rid of a few of those despicable infidel heretics who are trying to force their false religion and preposterous political system upon them? (Note: this is not my point of view; I am just trying to demonstrate through exaggeration a potential outlook that is almost certainly held by millions of people on this planet.)
.
.
2.Strategically it is important that we allow a head of state to rule as he or she will, as attacking a country over differences in a moral code weakens our position to deal with world leaders.

I think it is far more appropriate that we demonstrate our own moral worth through the way that we treat our own citizens and the way that we deal with other nations. I just cannot see how blowing up a country that did nothing to harm us, and killing thousands of its citizens in the process, can enhance our image with the citizens of any nation, nor give us credibility in dealing with other world leaders. Back in the previous century, this was known as Gunboat Diplomacy, and while it may have worked in the short term, it didn't win us very many friends in the long run.
.
.
3.The U.S. as a nation is not a governing body above Iraq, and therefore had no standing in which to carry out judgment upon it. The UN, however, had that right and could have exercised it

And chose not to.

So the U.S. acted unilaterally, ignored the U.N., and started a war with no more provocation than the idea that Saddam Hussein wasn't a very nice guy. Well, he wasn't a nice guy, and unquestionably the world is a better place now that he is out of power. But how would you feel if some foreign nation started blowing up things in this country because they didn't like the way our government was contributing to the deaths of its citizens? It seems like a ridiculous argument, maybe it is, but the U.S. government contributes to hundreds of thousands of deaths annually by subsidizing the tobacco industry. Not even Saddam can match those numbers. While I deplore our government's participation in this area, I certainly would not welcome attacks from outside the country whose intent was to protect us for our own good.
.
.
I’d say the U.S. would have been morally justified in attacking Iraq in order to end the human rights violations that were going on there.

Maybe (and to me it's a big maybe) morally justified. But not legally. And if we disregard the laws that are against our interests and intents of the moment, what does that say about our own morality?

tanstaafl.