What's flawed about your argument is that you assume that because I said hooray for a dead or deposed Saddam and an end to his acts, that I supported decisions NOT to do this sooner.  Let's not forget the noise Bush senior's opponents made near the end of the first Gulf War when speculation began about whether or not to go after Saddam.  He knuckled.  Too bad. 
But I have no interest in defending past wrongs, only in perpetuating present rights.
You rightly but I'd guess flippantly toss out Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma and I'd add a few more African countries suffering awfully.  So, I'm puzzled.  Your argument is that because I think fewer mass graves will be perpetuated in Iraq now -- and that that isa good thing -- that I must not support some type of action against similarly corrupt regimes?  Not only do you invoke the actions of other senates and other administrations (I could as well ask why it is not pre-emptive when Clinton lobs patriot missiles into foreign countries without so much as a peep from his constituents or his party), but you assume I think that two wrongs deserve a third.
And Afghanistan?  At least allow that such things take time, much less time than France has spent in Ivory Coast . . . but more than a year.  Besides, had they turned over one man, they could have continued to "prosper" under your utopian view of their former conditions.  I'm sure women being allowed to go to school ranks as a lightweight accomplishemnt that followed.  And again, I don't care that this was not a primary motivator of our forces.
Finally, war is always an evil act; unfortunatly it is sometimes the lesser of two.  Placating Afghanistan or Saddam, be it by "containment" or by financial support, cost far more lives than did action.  Again, when the body count for your solution is higher than mine, I'm left baffled at your maintenance of your position.  The only "ends justifying the means" going on here must be by people other than me.  Our inteligence capabilities will be and certainly are suspect for their inability to readily produce the damning WMDs; but once I found out about Saddam's using chemical weapons on the Kurds as test subjects, I wanted him dead.
Your support for inaction -- and "containment" is just such a non-action -- allows such a man to prosper, to do it again should he wish.  If he can hide chemical plants in semi trailers, he can hide genocide.
I'm absolutely baffled that anyone can not simply breathe a sigh of relief on his ousting, and acknowledge that while war is not good, good may prosper more freely now for millions.  Angry about the possible myth of WMDs?  Fine; attack.  Angry about our inaction regarding other countries?  Ditto.  But you're never going to get consistency from constantly changing administrations in a constantly changing world.
And, of course, something tells me that should the US set military sights on Zimbabwe or North Korea, you'd be loud among the detractors.  Let's not be disingenuous, shall we?
-------Original Message-------
Date: Sunday, June 15, 2003 2:57:32 AM
Subject: Re: OT Anti-human
>>>>>Far, far more bigoted, cruel, hateful, and downright immoral is using
one's intellectual gifts to arrive at the predetermined conclusion that
war, occupation, nation building is always and ever wrong except when
countries other than the US participate (read Ivory Coast), and infinitely
worse is to continue in this bankruptcy after thousands upon thousands are
dug up in mass graves. Yes, surely it would have been better to allow such
practices to continue<<<<

I'm so but this is just giving in to the nonsense that exists right now.
NO all war is not wrong, but this war against iraq was VERY wrong. THis
argument is just plain wrong! THe mass graves you talk about were partly
created in 1988 when the US and UK government countinued to support Saddam
and the ba'ath regime. In fact the stepped up their support for him after
he did this. Now America claims that him using "chemical weapons against
his own people" makes him comparable to Hitler, Saddam was in power since
1970 and was continually supported while he terrorized his people!

After the 1991 Gulf war, Poppy Bush encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up
against Saddam and then bowed out of the picture when they started to get
cold feet about the possibility of closer links with Iran, or that the
Kurds in the north might de-stablize Turkey. Saddam crushed the rebellion.
And what about the 1,000,000 dead iraq's, vicitms of sanctions (but i
suppose you still believe that Saddam was stopping the aid getting to his
people? -read the UN report, this is NOT the case)

THis war was about oil (Paul wolfavitz, admitted this)(sic?)and there are
no morals in oil.
I agree tyranny should be stopped, so why no Zimbabwae, Why not N. Korea?
Why not Burma?

As for nation building, bah, humbug! Look at Afganistan, the taliban still
control most of it, 97 Iraqi "terrorists" were murdered on thursday even
though Iraqi witnesses claimed that they were no such thing. EVERYONE
wanted Saddam gone but some of us lamented it could not have come earlier,
and not for the right reasons.

"using one's intellectual gifts to arrive at the predetermined conclusion
that war" is justified by it's ends NOW THAT'S morally bankrupt! If you
can't see the dollar signs shinning in people's eyes trying looking a bit


$B%-%c%j%"%"%C%W$rL\;X$9$"$J$?$N%J%S%2!<%?!< (B MSN $B="?&!&E>?& (B
  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here