[SantalBlush]

The US went ahead with the Iraq War after failing to gain approval with the UN. That was when they made up their "Coalition of the willing" as a weak justification. You might say, "At least they sought approval in the first place, unlike Russia," but the fact that they ignored the UN decision shows that they weren't actually seeking international approval, or any sort of coalition.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

[sandworm101]

And which flag now flies over Iraq? Like or hate the war, but it is clear that the US never intended on taking Iraq as a colony or US territory. Russia wants to literally own bits of Ukraine forever. China intends to literally own Taiwan. And I wouldn't describe the UK involvement lightly. 40k+ troops, roughly one-in-four, and a greater percentage of front line troops, was a solid partnership.

[SantalBlush]

>the US never intended on taking Iraq as a colony or US territory.

That's not how it works. And we can discuss this, but it's a change of subject. The topic was whether "the US does accept that the international stage is governed by rules", which is false. If you want to acknowledge that, then we can move on to the topic of puppet states and sovereignty.

Whatever flag now flies over Iraq, or whether the US and UK had a "solid partnership" (whatever that means), has no bearing on whether or not the US invasion of Iraq violated international rules. It was still an illegal invasion. Moving the goalposts won't work here.

[foverzar]

Why would one spend resources on providing someone with benefits of citizenship, when a neocolonial practice of establishing a puppet government is enough for one's goals?