This is due to the reason that, they termed the strategic actions by the USA as uncalled for. As such, there have been actions to seek a solution that would help to normalize such actions by the USA – that is, an independent body that would be in the position to either approve or disapprove the actions that the military takes. When compared to the UK newspapers, most of them did not give a sequence of the events as outlined in The Washington Post (2003). The closest elaboration was given by The Independent UK (2013) when the mentioned that the year 2013 was the 10th anniversary of the war in Iraq. In addition to that, instead of giving a description about the events that occurred in the 10-year crisis, they spoke more about Tony Blair, his decisions to take Britain to the war in Iraq, his opinions of the war and so on. Based on that, it can be concluded that The Washington Post (2003) was more elaborative with regard to the timeline of the war (the timeline of the war was significant to the US citizens) as compared to the UK newspaper which was more of a debate seeking to answer the question “Why Britain was involved in the war”. With regard to what The Independent UK (2013) discussed, it can be stated that the war in Iraq was not much of their concern. As such, it was close to not being significant to the British citizens.

As described by The Guardian UK (2004), the legality in the ideology that the USA conducted a legal invasion into Iraq is still a debate that has never had a sound solution. Nations such as UK and USA have long since been debating as to whether the war that sparked after the US took the step to invade Iraq will ever come to an end. As noted by the previous UN Secretary-General – Kofi Annan, the war in Iraq was very much illegal. In his statement, he mentioned that “from our point of view and the UN Charter point&nbsp.of view, it [the war] was illegal. In addition to that, Kofi Annan added that the USA would have taken the step to inform the Security Council about their decision rather than making a unilateral decision and acting on it without any discussion with the bodies responsible (The Guardian, 2004).&nbsp.