What's your point here?
There are plenty of countries that do bad things to people.
That doesn't give other nations license to illegally invade them.
The US used that ol' chestnut.
"Might Makes Right".
My point is that Iraq wasn't a garden spot BEFORE the invasion, and it would be much more likely to remain worse without intervention than with it.
And while there may be "plenty of countries" where human rights violations are found, few match the quality and quatity of those found in Saddam's Iraq. Additionally, very few have invaded their nieghbors (Iran, Kuwait).
Now, YOUR point seems to be that there is NO circumstance short of actually being attacked, for the USA to invade another nation. Upon this point we disagree.
However, we do have common ground when it the justification for invasion = human rights violations: The USA should not invade other nations based only upon this criteria.
No..that's not my point. I was perfectly fine with the actions taken in the Balkans.
My point is that when you lie to invade a country that did nothing to you..
It's a crime.
That work?
It would work better if it was topical.
The tread is about deaths in Iraq since the US invasion; my point is that these deaths could easily have been equal or greater than those extrapolated from the Saddam regime's record.
The answer to the question about whether or not it is "criminal" to "lie" to justify any invasion seems obvious. In Iraq, their was, and remain ample evidence that human rights violations, including genocide WERE FACTS, so whatever "lie" about which you are reffering is irrelevant to the discussion.