Island, I did not "proclaim you a hypocrite", I wanted you to clarify some of your views to proove that you are not one of those people. There is a difference. And I am sorry for implying that you are a Republican, that was a low blow.
And emcom, (Tom), I appreciate those links. They certainly contain evidence that Sadam and his sons are brutal dictators, but that has never been in contention by anyone, as far as I know. The argument is over the best way to contain him, and I believe that the course that we were on before invading Iraq was a good one.
Why didn't we intervene in 1988? That is what I want to know. History is not supporting the argument that we are in the liberation business. I wish that we were, the people of Africa and Latin America could have really used our help these last 15 years. And we wouldn't have to even commit troops, we financially support half of the world, if we told them to stop or no more $$, it would be done.
I do believe that Latin America and Iran-Contra is relevent to this conflict, it goes directly to our credibility w/ the rest of the world, (and many U.S. citizens, including me), about our true motivations and goals w/ our foreign policies. The fact of the matter is that we have never given a rat's ass about dictators silencing their own people through brutal means as long as said dictators were furthering 'U.S. interests' in some way. The compromises that we have been willing to make in that area have always been unacceptable to me, and many others.
If this is truly the dawn of a new age where as the world's foremost superpower we will no longer tolerate human rights abuses by anyone, anywhere, than I am all for it. But count me as sceptical, if no oil is involved.
