[CamB]

Island - I don't see it as lies and spin.

Strictly defined, it was a multi-lateral war. Strictly defined, it may have been legal.

Both those are open to criticism. While it might have been multi-lateral, it could have been considerably more multi-lateral. Moreover, the hypocrisy is pretending that even the two countries who sent combat troops did so on a proportional basis.

Proportionally, this is the US's war. It is not Poland's, or El Salvador's, or Latvia's war. It is barely Australia's war, and only partly the UK's war - and I'm talking proportionally.

Secondly, the widespread disagreement with the manner in which the US went to war - without concensus, without a general belief in immediate threat from Saddam - means that the legal basis is pretty thin. Saddam might have been in violation of 1441, but what right does a country which would ignore a vote from the UN on going to war because of a violation of 1441 have to rely on that resolution as a rationale for war?

Bottom line, the US should have waited, and different options been pursued if necessary ... and hindsight is only further weakening any reasons there might be for disputing this.

(edit - second last paragraph for clarity)