In the last 100 years, Which US invasions were unilateral? Even panama is a stretch given the diplomatic history prior re the cannal. There has been nothing like crimea/ukraine.

100 years ago the Philippines was an American colony.

So? Three hundred years ago the US was a British colony. Canada was technically a UK colony until the 1980s. The history of colonies and empires is interesting but not particularly relevant to international relations today. Countries don't buy and sell other counties anymore. Hong Kong was perhaps the last.

> Three hundred years ago the US was a British colony.

Strictly, parts of the modern US were separate British colonies (colonies of the Kingdom of Great Britain, not the UK, which is newer.)

> Canada was technically a UK colony until the 1980s

Largely, it should be noted, because the Canadian provinces couldn’t agree on a method for amending the Constitution domestically to replace British Parliamentary authority.

> Countries don't buy and sell other counties anymore

I mean, Trump wanted to buy Greenland, but generally overt sale of inhabited territory is somewhat passé. Less direct means of buyingn coubtries are still, at least, actively pursued, if not always successful.

Isn't this what you asked rhetorically a little while ago: "In the last 100 years, Which US invasions were unilateral?"

The US went ahead with the Iraq War after failing to gain approval with the UN. That was when they made up their "Coalition of the willing" as a weak justification. You might say, "At least they sought approval in the first place, unlike Russia," but the fact that they ignored the UN decision shows that they weren't actually seeking international approval, or any sort of coalition.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

And which flag now flies over Iraq? Like or hate the war, but it is clear that the US never intended on taking Iraq as a colony or US territory. Russia wants to literally own bits of Ukraine forever. China intends to literally own Taiwan. And I wouldn't describe the UK involvement lightly. 40k+ troops, roughly one-in-four, and a greater percentage of front line troops, was a solid partnership.

Why would one spend resources on providing someone with benefits of citizenship, when a neocolonial practice of establishing a puppet government is enough for one's goals?

>the US never intended on taking Iraq as a colony or US territory.

That's not how it works. And we can discuss this, but it's a change of subject. The topic was whether "the US does accept that the international stage is governed by rules", which is false. If you want to acknowledge that, then we can move on to the topic of puppet states and sovereignty.

Whatever flag now flies over Iraq, or whether the US and UK had a "solid partnership" (whatever that means), has no bearing on whether or not the US invasion of Iraq violated international rules. It was still an illegal invasion. Moving the goalposts won't work here.