You appear to be saying that giving a disputed figure or disposition of Iraqi forces is a "war crime". It's not disputed that Iraq invaded Kuwait.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, adopted on 29 November 1990, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677 (all 1990), the council noted that despite all the United Nations efforts, Iraq continued to defy the Security Council.
The United Nations Security Council, invoking Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, offered Iraq one final chance to implement Resolution 660 (1990) which demanded that Iraq withdraw its forces unconditionally from Kuwait to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990, the day before the invasion of Kuwait began.
On 29 November 1990, the Security Council passed Resolution 678 under the guidance of Canada, the USSR, United Kingdom and the United States,[1] which gave Iraq until 15 January 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait and empowered states to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq out of Kuwait after the deadline. The Resolution requested Member States to keep the council informed on their decisions. This was the legal authorization for the Gulf War, as Iraq did not withdraw by the deadline.[2]
Cuba's position was nuanced as it had voted for or abstained on previous resolutions relating to the Iraqi invasion, but did not support Resolution 678 because of its authorization of "all necessary means."[3]
Resolution 678 was adopted by 12 votes with two opposing (Cuba and Yemen) and one abstention from the People's Republic of China. The authority granted to Member States in this case contrasts with the disputed legality of U.S. actions in the invasion of Iraq of 2003.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678If you're trying to make a case, I'd leave the first Gulf War out of it, if I were you. It looks faintly ridiculous. Even Syria supported it.
= new reply since forum marked as read