Seeing how this was moved from the Conspiracy Theory Forums then it's safe to say that you do acknowledge that :
1) Chemical Weapons were used by the US on Fallujah
Define "chemical weapons." If your definition includes incendiaries, please see the UN regulations on chemical weapons, specifically the section on definitions. I don't care if you don't like that definition, that's the definition, and if you don't like it you're welcome to register your objections with the UN.
2) Nuclear Weapons (DU) have been used all over the country
DU is not a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons produce nuclear detonations. DU is only extremely weakly radioactive; it is more dangerous in terms of heavy metal poisoning, which you can get just as badly or worse from tungsten or lead, than it is in terms of radioactivity. While there is anecdotal evidence that exposure to low-level radiation over a long period of time can have health risks in excess of those commonly accepted, the plural of anecdote is not evidence, and there certainly is no credible evidence of this at this time, and considerable evidence to the contrary. Finally, define "all over the country."
3) A genocide is being carried out in Iraq
Genocide is the attempted killing of every single member of a certain race; that has been extended to a religious group that is technically not mono-racial, IMO fairly if not entirely accurately, in the Jews. Nothing like that is being attempted in Iraq. The most pessimistic estimates of casualties are in the hundreds of thousands, and more reasonable ones in the tens of thousands, in a country inhabited by 26 millions. It isn't even decimation. It isn't even within an order of magnitude of decimation. Not even the most exaggerated claim makes it that high.
4) Torture is common place
Certainly I am very much not in favor of the use of torture, by anyone, at any time, for any reason. First, there is the proven fact that it does not work if one's objective is to gather information. So the only reason for using it is punishment, and I'm not in favor of using it to punish someone; my country's constitution specifically forbids it, as a matter of law. Second, if it is being used for punishment, it is punishment of people who have not been found guilty of anything. Being found guilty requires that someone have appeared in front of a legally constituted court, and been presented with the opportunity to mount a defense against the accusations against them, not to mention have the accusations and evidence presented to them publicly. I consider it a stain on my country's honor that the situation in Abu Ghraib was allowed to occur, and far moreso that those responsible for oversight who failed that responsibility were not tried for it.
On the other hand, what do you mean by "common place?" And by the way, who precisely is doing the torturing? We have so far one accusation of a series of incidents perpetrated by a small number of individuals, who were caught and punished (though, as I say, those responsible for seeing to it it didn't happen in the first place were not punished, or even accused). Are you saying the Iraqis are doing it to each other? Well, apparently that may be true- but if it is, what precisely would you have the occupying force, which is at least notionally supposed to be supporting the government that is engaging in this torture, do about it? Just leave? Think they'll stop? I think not. And by the way, just precisely what do you define as "torture?" And how does that relate to sawing a living human being's head off with a knife? Is THAT torture?
5) We invaded a country based on Right Wing Extremists WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY
This appears to be true. Not only that, but it appears that they had enough information to know that it was before moving forward. This is incompetent at best, evil at worst.
On the other hand, I have to admit that even I thought they'd find SOMETHING. I mean, be it twenty-year-old gas shells, or another insecticide factory, or at least they'd fake something up if they couldn't put their hands on something that at least LOOKED like it might be INTERPRETED as a WMD. But they didn't even bother to lie about it. Ever wonder why that is?
And by the way, while I think it was a stupid decision no matter what the justification, I do have to admit that the man was definitely a loose cannon in the ME. Not that the situation's any better now then before we started, and potentially worse, but he was, after all, a pretty unsavory fellow. And we at least STARTED with SOME of them thinking maybe it was gonna be OK we'd invaded. Now, they all just think we're dips**ts, but given the incompetence this administration has shown over and over again, I guess that's no surprise. Apparently they got a bunch of political cronies and ideological bedfellows over there who were just as incompetent as they were to try to run things, and it's all gone to hell in a handbasket.
I do think we need to clean it up, and I think most people think so too. And cleaning it up is a hell of a problem. And I don't think the way numb nutz is going about it is going to help any; the only hopeful sign I see is that someone relatively competent seems to be in charge on the ground, but I fear that there are still a bunch of the same dumb cronies over there screwing things up, and I know for sure there are on this side of the operation, so I have no doubt that come the end of the summer, we're going to see some fireworks. It might well come before that; after all, how long do you stay on the sinking ship telling everyone everything's OK before you decide it might be a good idea to find one of those boats they're supposed to have on there in case it sinks?
So three of your five assertions strike me as unfounded, or using definitions that are not commonly accepted for specific technical terms that you are using for shock value. Two of the five appear to have some foundation in fact, though even in one of those two cases there is strong equivocation possible, and the single remaining one is based on interpretation. While I agree with your emotional state, I do not agree with your facts. I think also that presenting non-factual data in this case, as in all others I can think of, is counterproductive. Basically, I see no reason why what you've said here will help.
