RF:
I don’t believe that the concept of what is legal or illegal exists outside of a codified legal system. As much as people might like to think otherwise, that simply doesn’t exist on an international scale. At best, we can say something is more or less acceptable to the international community (that also being a pretty amorphous concept).
You will note that while many countries did not approve of the US’s action in Iraq, not one country officially came in on the side of Iraq. Not one. I think I outlined fairly well what the US’s justifications were, and while Bush did a lousy job articulating things, it does all come down to the Gulf War of the 90s and subsequent resolutions passed to enforce the permanent disarment of S.H.s regime. It was clear to me that S.H. did his best to violate the letter and the spirit of that disarmament plan, and therefore the US was justified in invading.
That being said, I personally would not have voted for an invasion, if it had been put to a vote.
Can you understand what I mean when I say that although I accept the legitimacy of the invasion, I still think it was tactically the wrong thing to do? Mainly because of the potential for loss of US lives and the gross uncertainty of building a civil society in Iraq in the aftermath.