Not commenting on OP, but you are talking about a single US regime.
And Many countries did independently investigate, and refuse help.
And Many countries did independently investigate, and refuse help.
The UK, Spain, Italy and a few other EU countries took part in the illegal invasion of Iraq.
It was not illegal
> Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (chemical)
Even the US government admitted after the war that it could find no evidence of an Iraqi WMD program. All the US found were a few misplaced ancient, rusting artillery shells from the 1980s. These things were unusable, and were more of a danger to the people handling them than anything else. This is not the WMD stockpile the US claimed Saddam had. Nobody would ever have accepted to go to war on the basis of, "We think there are still a few misplaced, unusable artillery shells with degraded chemical agents in Iraq."
The vast majority of the most recent wars have not been UNSC authorized. UN involvement is not necessary for a war to occur nor do they prevent wars or proxy wars between countries on the UNSC. The "modern international system" is an ideal. The US was attacked.
>ancient, rusting artillery shells (from the 1980s)
20-30 years old isnt ancient, they were serviceable, and they had chemical weapons in the quantity for the potential of wmds. That is only what they found, and I imagine there were more not found.
>Nobody would ever have accepted to go to war
There was reasonable evidence they had more that the allied force didn't find. The international community is more to blame for the conditions after involvement than the instigators 10+ years on. A neighbor is beating up another neighbor and both are blaming it on someone else.
Unless those wars are fought in imminent self-defense, then they're illegal. The invasion of Iraq was an especially egregious violation of international law for two reasons:
1. The US knew that the UN Security Council would reject a resolution authorizing war, so it decided in the end not to ask.
2. The war had catastrophic consequences for Iraq. It's not every day a country of 20+ million people is invaded and its government overthrown. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result.
A third factor making this war particularly egregious is the deliberate campaign of disinformation that was carried out in order to justify it.
> The US was attacked.
Not by Iraq.
> 20-30 years old isnt ancient, they were serviceable, and they had chemical weapons in the quantity for the potential of wmds.
This is how the NY Times described the small number of chemical artillery shells found scattered across Iraq:
> Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
These were the misplaced remnants of the chemical weapons program that Iraq dismantled in the 1990s.
> There was reasonable evidence they had more that the allied force didn't find.
The US occupied Iraq for nearly a decade. It's simply not credible to claim that there was any sort of sizeable stockpile that the US did not find.
>> The US was attacked.
>Not by Iraq.
Saddam gave material assistance to suicide bombers and network. It would suggest had they not gotten rid of him some of the perpetrators would have tried again. The resulting catastrophe was the result of neighbors meddling in their affairs and an internal domestic power struggle.
>These were the misplaced remnants of the chemical weapons program that Iraq dismantled in the 1990s.
if it was dismantled it wouldn't exist.
>It's simply not credible to claim that there was any sort of sizeable stockpile that the US did not find.
it probably wasnt in Iraq anymore.
Edit: I can't reply to the child but here are some salient quotes from the wiki...
"I will wait until the end of the week before judging – many dark actors playing games. Thanks for your support." - Dr Kelly
"it was subsequently established that neither the knife nor the blister packs showed Kelly's fingerprints on their surfaces"
"The former leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard, and the former Liberal Democrat MP, Norman Baker, both think Kelly was murdered.[173] In 2007 Baker published The Strange Death of David Kelly in which he argued that Kelly did not commit suicide."
It was about timing too - it was a critical point for Blair and Bush getting the war they so desired. Keeping in mind there was already huge opposition to the war, proper 1st hand evidence being revealed at that point could well have resulted in Blair having to stand down, and potentially even the British not joining the war. Which of course the US services would not have liked.
I do see your point, mind, but I don't think such damning circumstantial evidence is "shit"; by that logic, MI6 could never be responsible for anything, unless of course they signed a confession.
This regime has remained in power ever since Bush's 8 year reign of terror. In fact, they were in power even before George W. Bush's administration. The name of the president may change, but the people running the US war machine remain the same.