I wanted to leave a little more substance early and lost the replying; then, running out of time, I was at a lose. So here is the essence of it all:
They (Bush/Blair) hyped WoMD; fear of instant abilities of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare; retaliation with same; al Queda connections; etc. as primary justification to a public that required UN approval (which never happened) before going to war. This was all a lie, no truth - illegal war.
Myself, I always believed that there were WoMD anyway. Therfore, there advent was not justification for war. I always believed, and still do, that Saadam would eventually give legal reason for a war
As it stood, there was sufficiant deterence from the UN inspectors. A cranking up of the UN pressure was highly justified and there was every indication it would work.
What was done was inhuman and criminal. I truly believe that there should be war tribunal with Bush, Blair and majordomos on trial. So does Bush, else, why did he try to (did he acheive it
) get resolutions passed to exempt him and his cohorts from trials?