>> ^bcglorf:

First off, I think Bush and Cheney should both be impeached and thrown in jail for allowing torture and the idea of Geneva-less non-combatants.

I'm with you there.

That said, comparing an invasion of Georgia to an invasion of Saddam's regime in Iraq is ludicrous. Georgia never gave government offices to wanted terrorists. Georgia never annexed a soverign nation. Georgia never used chemical weapons against it's neighbors and own people. Georgia never committed genocide. Saddam did all of these and a great deal more.

And this is where you lost me. I am comparing the motivation of the political leaders who invaded these nations, and I see a similarity between political agendas being served. First of all, the annexing you speak of was in 1990, and H.W. Bush answered that one. Dubya's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with genocide or chemical weapons or annexing nations; it had everything to do with American hegemony and protecting the dollar when Saddam decided to switch from the petrodollar to the petroeuro. Any other reason given for the invasion and occupation was bullshit propaganda.

First off, Bush Jr. wasn't in power when 100's of thousands of lives were at stake in Rwanda and Sudan. I think it's unfair to blame prior presidential inaction on the current president(even one that aught be impeached). More importantly, the left wing argument about non-intervention in Sudan or Rwanda is insane. The question is SHOULD the world have intervened in Sudan and Rwanda, and the answer is a deafening YES!

I'm not just talking about the crises in Sudan and Rwanda. Africa is marred by violence and famine, and dictators run most of it with an iron fist, thus causing millions of deaths across the continent. If we are so gung-ho about stopping genocide, why not start there instead of in the Middle East? We chose the Middle East, and it's because we're afraid OPEC will switch to the petroeuro and destroy the dollar. And we cover this in the guise of stopping terrorists. Meanwhile, bin Laden is still missing, and the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. PROPAGANDA takes the place of information, yet again.

If non-intervention in Iraq would have led to a coup and a civil war that in any way resembled Sudan or Rwanda then inspite of Bush and Cheney's actions that appall me, the act of preventing that would redeem them. That said, I don't think anyone can really see what an internal Iraqi civil war would've looked like. Though, it would be fair to say it would have been ugly, at least as ugly as the current situation in Iraq.

You don't know what a civil war in Iraq looks like? Have you not heard the body count of civilians caught in the crossfire of the Sunni-Shi'ite battles?