You ignore 30 years of history with Iraq from about 1970 to shortly before the invasion. There's evidence, for example, that if Iraq had held off for a couple of years on invading Kuwait that they would have had nuclear weapons in 1993. They also have a history of using chemical weapons both on Iranian troops and on their own people. My take is that sure in 2003, Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program. But it is foolish to assume that they wouldn't restart it as soon as international pressure and observation went away.
I wasn't that familiar with that part of Iraqi's history, so I did some research. You are indeed correct that Saddam had a decent nuke program in 1992. The program would have taken at least 3 more years, so there would not be a weapon until 1995. A nuke in 1993 would only be possible if they seized the uranium that was under UN safeguards, which would have been a major incident that Saddam clearly didn't want (or he would have seized the uranium).
We are discussing the 2003 situation however. At that point all Iraqi uranium was safeguarded. Why would the UN ever stop safeguarding that uranium? The IAEA was created to monitor nations like Iraq.
They had the knowledge, they probably had a good portion of the equipment too, hidden away in Sudan or Syria, along with the other military assets (primarily their air force) they routinely shipped out before any war.
Do you have any evidence to prove that the air force and other military assets were shipped to Sudan or Syria? AFAIK that never happened, but was simply implied/assumed/made up by various untrustworthy people.
This just underlines my point. Iraq had invaded two neighbors in the past 30 years. They had a long history of developing WMDs including nuclear weapons. They had used chemical weapons and killed thousands. Nobody else in your list has invaded anyone in the past 50 years or used WMDs to kill.
The war with Iran was supported by the US, who also supplied WMD's to Iraq for use in that war. Saddam only began the war with Kuwait because he thought that the US wouldn't mind. He offered to withdraw later, on the condition that he was allowed sufficient time to keep his defensive front intact. This was disallowed by the US. So it seems clear to me that Saddam was receptive to western concerns and there is no reason to assume that Iraq could not be kept in check.
Also, you ignore the huge difference between the Iraq of 1980 vs 1991 vs 2003. In 1991, Iraq was virtually bankrupt. In 2003, Iraq couldn't start any major war or risk one by attacking a smaller neighbour. They had no useable WMD's. So what was the justification for attacking Iraq if it wasn't a threat.
And what punishment has the US faced for violating this "international law"? It's not a law, if there are no consequences for breaking it. This is the fundamental problem with current international law.
The US has been punished for WTO violations, where the WTO has authorized retaliatory tariffs. Various countries have been punished by UN security council resolutions, by instituting sanctions or authorizing war. Obviously, countries with a veto (such as the US) can never be punished there. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is very young and their first trial has only begun this year (of course, they punish individuals, not states). It is possible for US nationals (such as politicians) to be tried by that court under certain conditions. The penalty is jail time. The US has passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act authorizing the president to start a war against The Netherlands to free US personnel from ICC custody. It also instructs the government not to cooperate with the court (although the president can choose to do so). Of course, there have also been special courts, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which has punished many war criminals.
There is also the International Court of Justice to arbitrate conflicts between states, as well as various other arbitration procedures to ensure that countries follow the treaties they sign. There is no direct punishment for ignoring binding rulings, although other countries or the UN security council may institute their own punishments.
I believe that these institutions have been crucial in our current prosperity (since the current global economy could not have been created without a mechanism to arbitrate trade conflicts), have prevented wars and have punished some very nasty criminals. Of course, we have a long way to go still, but our own systems of law took a long time to mature. In fact, until fairly recently, it was still common to solve some conflicts by duelling (for the higher classes) or a fist fight (for the lower classes). Just because international law isn't perfect, doesn't mean we should just ignore it.
You also ignore that every country practices "exceptionalism". It is the norm.
Actually, most civilised countries try to follow international law as much as possible, sign important treaties, try to solve conflicts through international institutions, etc. Since international law is imperfect and there is no world democracy, not everything can be solved this way. The US is not charged with exceptionalism because they occasionally solve their problems outside of these institutions, they do so continually and often act in bad faith. The opposition against the ICC is one clear example; US politicians and soldiers reserve the right to mass murder, enslave, mass torture, make people disappear, etc. We know that the US government did this because they wanted to be able to torture people and make them disappear, using those tactics in the War on Terror. Acting in good faith would be when the US government would go to the UN and would argue that torture and making people disappear should be allowed in some cases and calling for a modification to the ICC treaty. Then the US arguments could be openly discussed and criticised. At that point, depending on the changes made to the treaty, the US could still decide whether they are willing to submit to that. If they wouldn't, they would violate international law, but at least other countries would know the limits of those violations and could pressure the US.
Instead, the US government pretended not to torture, while doing so anyway. The message is clear: you are free to lie to the international community about what you do as long as you are strong enough to get away with it. It is the opposite of strengthening international law.
Your country nor my country (the US) doesn't have the authority to try someone for violating international law, only the laws of our respective country. It's a modest difference. Our countries do have the authority to arrest someone and pass them on to the World Court or other international judicial bodies that may exist in the future.
International (criminal) law is mostly a subset of the criminal laws of our respective countries. We are talking about the most awful crimes that any sensible country would disallow (although the US has recently undermined those laws). These crimes always fall under the jurisdiction of the countries involved. The US may prosecute genocide if US citizens are the perpetrators or victims. You may also prosecute if the crime happens on US territory. The major difference between a regular and an international crime is that you may also choose to extradite the suspect to an international court. If you had signed up to the ICC, you would in fact be obligated to either try the suspect yourself or to extradite them.
Belgium goes even further by prosecuting these crimes themselves, regardless of any connection with their country. In other words, they will also prosecute crimes by non-Belgians against non-Belgians that happened outside Belgium.
This is true to an extent. My view is that due to the post-war problems with Iraq, the US will for a time be reluctant to engage in military adventurism due to the degree of failure in Iraq.
True, but the problem is that the enemies of the US know this and use it to their advantage. As Rooseveldt said: âoeSpeak softly and carry a big stick." In other words, solve things peacefully when possible and keep your military ready to go. The US is in the opposite situation, the military is exhausted and fully used.
The problem is that there's no real power capable of protecting the US's interests aside from the US itself. Exceptionalism will return. The only long term solution that avoids US (or other superpower domination) is the creation of international bodies, with military power including nuclear weapons, to enforce desired restrictions on military activity and WMD proliferation.
Bullshit. No one wants to lose control over their army. The only viable solution is a cooperative model. Anyway, the US is slowly but surely losing it's dominance, so the future will have multiple large powers. The only question is whether they will cooperate or let the world go to shit.