Of course the US has acknowledged the ICC.

In 2002 on the heels of 9/11 George W Bush signed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_... into law, also known as Hague Invasion Act, specifically acknowledging the ICC in the clearest of ways.

If there is a nation that cannot be expected to act with equanimity in regards to Israel, that's Germany. Nothing to do with the legitimacy of the ICC, that Germany has always recognised.

Is this something the German chancellor can say? In countries with an independent judiciary, this is a matter for prosecutors, police and courts.

> Nobody voted for them.

How is that relevant? Is an elected judiciary demonstrably more objective at interpreting law?

Judges aren't representatives, they exist to interpret the law.

The US has no business attempting to enforce domestic law on foreign leaders present in the country under diplomatic immunity.

If lying were a crime, Trump would never be released from jail again.

I know they meant nukes. Both Bush and Netanyahu explicitly said nukes. I am strictly talking about potential perjury. If in official testimonies they only said WMD then they did not commit perjury.

What was the real motivation?

> They had jack. Zero. Nada.

> It was ginned up BS

This is just not true. You can view the documents on wikileaks and other organizations.

> that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis.

Perhaps, but completely irrelevant to whether or not they had WMD.

I don't get why people who are on the right side of this refuse to admit this.

The Kurds would beg to differ.

If you read up on Iraq's history of WMDs, the relevance of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons was that Saddam's regime had already a long history of developing and using these types of weapons both against neighbors and its own civilians. When Saddam decided to invade and annex Kuwait, half the world united to act, drive him out, and eliminate Iraq's WMD programmes. After the first gulf war, the UN was in charge of verifying that Saddam's regime destroyed it's existing stockpile and WMD programmes, but Saddam not only actively prevented the UN from doing any form of verificarion but also outright antagonized the UN.

It was with this backdrop that the "Iraq has WMDs" campaign managed to get traction. If you learn history and pay attention to the events, you'll quickly understand that Saddam's antagonism and mockery of the whole UN institution, specially when they self-isolated, was an easy sell even with weak evidence.

Making this out to be a simple matter exclusively and bounded to the existence of WMDs is naive and outright ignorant.

Perhaps because the article you linked says things like:

> U.S.-led inspections later found that Iraq had ceased active WMD production and stockpiling.