You're right we shouldn't have invaded it. We should have carpet bombed it into a crater and walked away. I wouldn't expect America to sit back and take a terrorist attack and not do anything about it.
As for the WMDs. Iraq had the facilities, the materials, and the means to make them. They're just in Syria or some other place. If it looks like a duck, quacks, like a duck.
I have the knowledge to assemble a rocket launcher, one that could do damage and potential bodily harm. I haven't built it yet, all I have is the tube for the body from a model kit and some engine. I could go to my next door neighbor and get some gunpowder for it, does this mean the police should automatically barge into my house and arrest me on what I might
be able to do with it?
Saddam may well have been able to toss some together, but he was smart enough not to in the original Gulf War. It was candidly explained to Iraq then (when they did
have WMD's to use) that to use any on US forces meant American aircraft would be penetrating into Iraq with 'special' ordnance in tow.
Saddam was blustering and he was reckless to be sure, but he wasn't that
And bombing Iraq into a crater and walking away just because we think they mean us harm isn't justified. It would make us look as bad or worse as the USSR at its worst, and likely turn even Europe's collective backs to us. And the president that ordered it would be a war criminal.
Besides its not technically a war. A war is described as one sovereign state attacking another by modern standards. This is an extended police action.
But what would have happened if we hadn't done anything after 9/11. I wouldn't want to think about it.
Just like 'ethnic cleansing' technically isn't genocide? A sovereign state did attack another, no matter how it was defined by the White House, which is packed with liars and crooks. Just because Congress didn't officially declare it doesn't mean it's not war. As you said, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...