Dude, we have discussed the justification, or lack thereof, for the war numerous times. You believe it is "illegal." I don't.
You haven't answered the question. The legality of the war is not open to your belief. Either you can point to governing law or you cannot. I point out Bush violated UN RES 1441. You tell me that "I don't believe he has broken the law..."
Can you see why your answer is no answer at all?
We aren't intentionally killing innocent Iraqis, so your question is based on a false premise. And who said innocent Iraqis deserve to die?
The Iraq population isn't dying by accident my friend.
You said "War is self defense. We have rules of engagement. No innocent persons are intentionally killed in war."
The Iraq war is not about Self Defense--if it is, then show me.
And the Pentagon anticipates collateral damage, loss of innocent life, when a city is bombed and shot up.
There is nothing inconsistent about being opposed to murder. Killing combatants in war is not murder. The unintentional killing of noncombatants in war is not murder. No comparison to abortion at all.
By your own criterion of " lack of due process", the killing of a fetus is wrong. The Iraqi people had some due process in the form of UN monitoring, mediating and investigating their situation. Bush ordered the attack of Iraq in the face of the UN law and the UN WMD findings. So I guess I'm saying, there is no and never was a justified, legal war in Iraq.
If the war is not justified--THE REASON FOR KILLING--is not justified. That my friend is murder. Whether intentional, with mitigating circumstances or by extreme negligence.
This is where killing is murder...because the reason for the killing makes it so.