> The vast majority of the most recent wars have not been UNSC authorized.
Unless those wars are fought in imminent self-defense, then they're illegal. The invasion of Iraq was an especially egregious violation of international law for two reasons:
1. The US knew that the UN Security Council would reject a resolution authorizing war, so it decided in the end not to ask.
2. The war had catastrophic consequences for Iraq. It's not every day a country of 20+ million people is invaded and its government overthrown. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result.
A third factor making this war particularly egregious is the deliberate campaign of disinformation that was carried out in order to justify it.
> The US was attacked.
Not by Iraq.
> 20-30 years old isnt ancient, they were serviceable, and they had chemical weapons in the quantity for the potential of wmds.
This is how the NY Times described the small number of chemical artillery shells found scattered across Iraq:
> Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
These were the misplaced remnants of the chemical weapons program that Iraq dismantled in the 1990s.
> There was reasonable evidence they had more that the allied force didn't find.
The US occupied Iraq for nearly a decade. It's simply not credible to claim that there was any sort of sizeable stockpile that the US did not find.