It's an interesting notion that it's OK to invade a country, which leads directly to 1000's of deaths and indirectly to 100,000 more, which fails in every stated aim bar one (removing saddam), which leads to greater instability, etc, as long as you something 'good'.
Iraq = very bad thing
AIDS relief = very good thing
Does doing the latter make it OK to to the former? It's an interesting idea.
As for war crimes, 'we' won so extremely unlikely, plus 'big' counties have enough clout to avoid them.
If a country is threatening the rest of the world, what's the alternative?
We tried the alternative with Germany in the 30s, and many of our fathers and grandfathers paid a heavy price.
The problem is that we don't know what would have happened in Iraq if we hadn't invaded.
Maybe it would have been a good outcome, but we'll never know.