On March 20, 2003, President George W. Bush and his administration, fearing the use of nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction, declared war to Suddam Hussein and his regime. The majority believes that the removal of Saddam Hussein was the best thing, but the question “was the war with Iraq really necessary?” It still persists. I believe that war should only be used if there is immediate danger to those going to war. I have a just war theory view on the war with Iraq and I believe the war wasn't really because I can't see how it meets all the criteria of just war theory. For a war to be just it must have a just cause, it must be a last resort, it must have a reasonable chance of success, it must have proportionality, it must have the right intention. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe first of the criteria for just war theory is that there must be a just cause. More than 16 years after the war began and 8 years after its official end, there is still an overwhelming lack of evidence of the existence of so-called weapons of mass destruction. David Kay, who at the time of the war was head of the CIA's Iraq investigation team, tasked with finding alleged weapons of mass destruction. he appeared before congress 6 months after the war began and reported his team's achievements so far. Kay said the team had not found any substantial evidence of the weapons build-up, also warning that there may still be a threat as the investigation had not yet been completed. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein needed to go, but according to the Council on Foreign Relations, the administration had exaggerated how much of a threat he actually posed. Omar Taspinar told CFR that no one in Iraq's neighboring countries or in Europe considers Saddam Hussein a real threat because they believe he can be contained. Jhon Nixon, a former CIA analyst who interrogated Hussein at multiple different events, Nixon reported that when he asked Hussein about his intentions with chemical and nuclear weapons, he certainly didn't expect to hear what he did, the alleged leader of the greatest current threat to the American people had no intention of using weapons against us. Hussein told Nixon that the American people had made a grave error of judgment because they had not listened or tried to understand. This to me is proof enough that Saddam Hussein and his regime posed no immediate threat to us and those around him. Along with a just cause there must also be comparative justice. This means that the outcome of going to war with Iraq must outweigh the benefits of not going to war and leaving them alone. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was an evil human being who repressed his people, but Iraq before the US invasion is considerably better than it is today. The number of human lives lost due to the war rises to over 4,000 and almost 32,000 wounded according to the casualty status provided by the US Department of Defense; this is a tragic fact of war that could have been avoided. There must also be the right intention. According to General Tommy Franks, the United States wanted to end Saddam Hussein's regime, eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction, drive terrorists out of the country, and lead Iraq along a democratic path. Hussein was eliminated and the world is better off for it, but the weapons of mass destruction were never found. Afterwards.