Goddess_Peorth

What's missing here is an answer to the question asked.

What would be more useful is an explanation that civilian casualties are not automatically war crimes. Mistakes are not war crimes. "Civilian" support personnel are perhaps military personnel, and are legitimate targets. Family members who live with combatants inside the war zone are clearly legitimate targets, and are probably support combatants. Etc., etc.

An NGO attempting this would likely be arrested by their home country, and would be targeted by nation-state intelligence operations.

The reasons are all the same as why it isn't allowed for unlicensed individuals to send private security to arrest people they believe have committed crimes, but on a bigger stage.

Would you want Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran to form their own alternate court, and send mercenaries to capture whoever it accused? This is why it would not be legalized.

There were also other reasons for the Iraq war, such as Saddam Hussein having attempted to have Bush's father, President George H. W. Bush, assassinated. Furthermore, there was a broad international coalition that invaded Iraq, not just the US, which makes the invasion itself legitimate. Furthermore, sovereignty is not at issue, as you can see now with the US having withdrawn and not having annexed anything.

The US did not kill 1m people in Iraq, you might want to look into what that 1m number is, where it came from, and what it actually counts.

Then look up what happened in Bucha, etc.

This is a really weak answer, because you merely "doubt" when in actual fact it is clearly not of genocidal intent.

The first step would be to stop accusing the US of war crimes when they didn't happen.

For example, accidents are not war crimes. Mistakes are not war crimes. Civilian deaths adjacent to military targets that are caused by targeting that military equipment, are not war crimes.

Many here, and many countries who are members of the ICC, would support war crimes accusations against the US even based on a doctored video that purported to show the US targeting journalists, but where the full video shows that they were targeting militants. That the video is known to have been edited to create a false narrative does not stop the accusations from being repeated, including from numerous people who already know the video was doctored.

The ICC is a largely a political body. The standards of what it considers crimes vary depending on the nationality of the accused. There is also no requirement that the crimes would be considered crimes under broadly-accepted international treaties.