OK, I will do this again. The UN charter includes a very useful provision that says that all member states promise not to attack any other member state except in two instances: self-defense or permission of the Security Council. Neither exception applied in the case of the US invasion of Iraq.
Would you like to go over the details again?
Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. It was someone else.
The Secutiry Council (SC) did not approve the use of force. When we asked for that approval, the debate did not go well and it appeared that it would be a vote of 4 of 15 for, so the US withdrew the request and "went it alone". That makes the invasion illegal.
All the previous resolutions were directed to Saddam and did not actually authorize force. When the force question came up independently, it failed.
Now let me help you with my other statements. Before the war, based on knowledge that the public had, Chem/bio weapons were in the realm of possibility. I assume that the govt had better info. Since after the fact, there were none, I am wondering how the better information could not have foretold that. There was enough public information on the nuclear issue to know that there was NONE. The few pieces of evidence presented were patent lies. (Uranium purchase from Niger, high stength aluminum tubes)
And, ONCE AGAIN, you completely ignore the point. We were ALREADY AT WAR WITH IRAQ! The signed a cease-fire agreement ending hostilities in the first Gulf War. They then violated the terms of that agreement, thus breaking the cease fire. We needed no other justification than that.
I assume that the govt had better info.
Oh, you "assume"? So you label the President or his advisors liars because you "assume" there "better info"?
Since after the fact, there were none, I am wondering how the better information could not have foretold that.
And now you "wonder"? You have been asked to support your allegation that "there were none", and so far all we've gotten is hand-waving. How can you explicitly say that no WMDs exist?