Obviously, enforcing extraterritorial judgments is an issue. Hence the asset-freezing.
18 USC 2340: “Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”
If Saddam had bothered to send lawyers to argue his side of the torture case, perhaps the court would have ruled differently.
Not removed. He served as many terms as he was legally allowed.
He was removed by the US Constitution.
That’s not comparable to a military invasion. The U.S. government remained in place, the administration changed. No laws changed and the Constitution was not altered. And of course there’s still a significant U.S. military presence in Iraq. You pretty much acknowledged this yourself in your first post when you said “some people hold the U.S. responsible” and then shifted to talk about George W. Bush as an individual. The Baathist government was deposed by the invasion. The U.S. government was not reconstituted when Obama became president. There’s reason to argue Iraq is no longer responsible for these costs because the government that harmed the Americans no longer exists. That argument wouldn’t hold water for the invasion of Iraq. The government still exists and the occupation has been reduced significantly but is not over.
It must be a Canadian thing. We always talk about new governments and forming a new government when an election returns a different party to power.
The U.S. doesn’t have a parliamentary system, so terms like that don’t get used here. The Democrats and Republicans don’t form a coalition. In fact at this point they don’t do anything together at all. We might say a different party is in power, or that control of a branch of government or a house of Congress changed hands, or that there’s a new administration in the White House.
And even in a parliamentary system it’s not the same thing as what happened in Iraq.
Americans tend to use the word “administration” instead.
The short answer is: No.
A slightly longer answer is: Analogies between Vietnam War and the Bush-Cheney Wars are valid: America will fail because it mistreats the people it (supposedly) wants to help.
Reconstruction funds for destruction mostly caused directly or indirectly by U.S. action.
Was that million with an ‘m’? That’s just a rounding error in Bush’s Trillion Dollar Folly. How many billions were spent on destruction in the Most Foolish War Ever?