Reponse to WTM:
I am not sure I understood what you meant here, so we may or may not be in agreement.
1). It would appear that what we both have in common is the notion of 'helping people'; in this scenario we both want to, I believe, help the people of Iraq. But where we seem to diverge is around the best methods to use in order to help the people of Iraq.
2). I noticed that you placed the intervention of the military prior to 'diplomatic efforts'. I believe that diplomatic efforts should be placed first, and in the case of Iraq, they were already in place and working, albeit not to the satisfaction of the United States of America. Too many Americans believe that the military is the solution to every problem and that any other solution that the one that has been agreed upon by America is the wrong solution.
3). Did you forget that seemingly every other nation (that the U.S.A. had not inveigled), including our allies who were begging the U.S.A. to be patient and allow the process that the other nations of the world agreed upon to work!
4). However, we ignored the U.N.and the remaining 190 nations of the world and ordered the U.N. Inspector's out of Iraq before they could complete the diplomatic efforts. In that singular act we showed the world that we are not a nation that is truly interested in the Rule of Law or allowing diplomacy to work.
5). Have you ever asked yourself, what were our true motives for wanting to invade Iraq? Have you ever wondered, what did America want to hide? For example, why did it bother our leaders that the work of the weapon's inspectors was succeeding? Why did we suddenly get upset that they were not discovering WMDs?
6). I know what we were told by our 'misleading leader', but is it unreasonable to believe that the inspectors were going to destroy America's pretext for invading Iraq by proving that Iraq did not have the WMDs that we claimed that they possessed?
7). As you have already admitted in your own threads, WMDs were not even your motivation for going or staying in Iraq; you admitted that you also had a totally different agenda for being there. I happen to be a purist and I do not make distinctions based on national origin, patriotism or statehood. We cannot tell other nations that they are wrong when they engage in certain behaviors, when you and I know that America does the same thing!
8). If America wants to act in the capacity of moral arbitrageur of the universe, then we have to be moral ourselves, and comply with a moral code, and not the one that says that America can say one thing yet do another.
9). Otherwise we should simply admit what we all know is true, America has a superior military to most nations on the world and we will use it in order to pursue America's interests and to force our will upon the world, always under the guise of doing what's best or in defense of America.
10). The rest of the world will never view America as an honest broker when the world knows that we engage in misbehavior(s) and behave like a 'rogue nation' ourselves, just as we are currently doing in Iraq. Iraqi lives are being sacrificed given American malfeasance, so dispense with the straw man theory!
In our system we expect the judiciary to be above aboard, otherwise it would not make much sense for the members of our judiciary to act in the capacity that they do.
Finally: My question for you is, why aren't you as motivated to have the problems corrected in America, that you are so eager for America to go and correct somewhere else, and should another nation's military come in and straighten out America's problems!
Lets keep helping people, but let's do so in the proper fashion!