That's not what I'm saying at all though. All of my points were readily apparent (except for the intel being dodgy) before the invasion even happened, which is why there was so much international opposition to the war and why everybody who took part took a massive credibility hit.
Again, you are judging the case by what happened afterward.
The invasion was blame because of the outcome of the operation. Because
1.)Iraq is worse off than before
2.)US failed to find any live WMD
The problem is, as I said, you look at the situation as of 2002/2003, the decision is 50/50 at worse, 70/30 in favour of invasion due to the Iraqi non-complying of the UN observer.
A country wasn't cooperating so you get the right to invade? That isn't how it works. See my previous point about war only being justified as a legitimate last resort, and unnecessarily starting a war as being unconscionable.
In this case, they do, as per UN resolution 1441.
Resolution 1441 is basically the ultimatum UN given to Iraq in 2002 for their last chance to allow UN observer to access site without hindrance, impediment and restriction. The resolution was passed in 2002 unanimously. Which is referring to the resolution 687 signed into effect in 1990. (Meaning if Iraq fail to comply with 1441, it would have breached the ceasefire condition as given by resolution 687. I.e., nullify the ceasefire agreement.)
What people generally argue is that Whether or not violation of 687 would mean an automatic void of ceasefire agreement, and if so, 687 did not outline the situation what will happen after 687 was nullified, in usual custom, another security resolution should be raise and passed in order to authorise the use of force (Which arguing on the fact that nullifying an agreement does not mean the automatically use of force was authorised).
On the other hand, the absent of word regarding how UN should act in the event of Iraq nullifying the ceasefire agreement set forth by resolution 687 would mean it does not means military action is prohibited (as it did not said so, and you cannot have it both way) Also Paragraph 34 of Resolution 687 stated
Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
While this is commonly interpreted as Security Council Decided to remain seized to the matter and would use WHATEVER MEAN to secure peace and security to enforce the implementation of this resolution.
There are no argue that the use of force is one of the option reserved, however, one will argue by Security Council, it mean all the security council member, but at the same time, it did not explicitly refer to the council as a whole, or explicitly require another Security Council Resolution, again, this can swing both way.
Hence the US and UK decision to invade Iraq is neither legal, nor illegal if the resolution were followed thru up to each letter. Simply because it did not restrict nor limited the role of the security council and individual country, as it did not say that clearly.
What we know so far is this, By passing 1441 and by ignoring 1441, Iraq broke resolution 687 (this part is for sure) but whether or not 687 allow or disallow military action without another council meeting is not clear, it did not say, and since it did not explicitly mentioned, it's neither legal, nor illegal. In practices, it followed the resolutions given by the US and UK, it give the right, but not the how.