...in your opinion. Only the UNSC can rule it illegal, and they will not.
Ahh, its the other way around. Only the UN can authorise the use of military force (Articles 39 and 42 of the UN charter) except in the case of permissible self-defence (Article 51) with the conditions of necessity and proportionality.
Gulf War 2 was not legal, and Kofi Annan - boss of the UN - has said that. Like many mugs, I believed that there was a credible WMD threat and did not suspect that two governments would concoct a bogus case for war. I thought the Cyprus scenario in the dossiers was absolute b0llocks, but that there was critical int somewhere in the pipeline.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have walked out of the camp gate (I was working in the bowels of the Earth in rural Buckinghamshire at the time) on March 17th, dropping my kit off on the way out.
Ironically, I believe the Kinloss doctor is wrong in his stance as there is now a UN resolution concerning the presence of coalition troops. This does not make good the illegal war of 2003.
To return to the topic of the thread - perhaps, if anyone subject to the impartial process of the law (surely stitched up by the attorney general) as the result of any incident in Iraq, they should consider bringing a lawsuit against HMG for a failure in duty of care as the result of ordering participation in an illegal war.