The 2003 Iraq War lasted less than three weeks. It began in the early morning hours of March 20, when American missiles struck Baghdad. By April 9, U.S. forces had advanced into Baghdad. By April 15 Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had vanished, and U.S. and allied officials pronounced the end of major combat operations. Although the war itself was short, arguments over whether it was justified had been made for months and years prior to the attack, and still continue today. Going to war in Iraq was not justified on many levels.
One of the main reasons for the attacks on Iraq was to disarm them of any weapons of mass destruction that they have. This makes sense to prevent future terrorist attacks, but no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Iraq did use weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, but not since then (Corn 45). Virtually all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed or otherwise made unusable in the 1990's (Massing 2). Also, Saddam wanted to stay in power - using weapons of mass destruction would mean a sure end to his power. This calls into question whether or not invading Iraq was justified because the Bush administration should have known that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were effectively contained.
Because Iraq is effectively contained, it is no longer an imminent threat to the United States or any other countries anymore. Saddam Hussein has never threatened to attack the United States or to use weapons of mass destruction offensively (Farley 29). Sure, Iraq's surrounding countries such as Kuwait and Iran hate Saddam Hussein, but they are not afraid of him. They know that Iraq is the weakest country in the region. Iraq has been weak and under control since the Gulf War and has not troubled its neighbors (Gerassi 2). If Iraq is not a threat, there is no reason to be attacking them.
Not only is Iraq not a threat, but there is no evidence linking Iraq or Saddam Hussein to the 9/11...