SNIP
>
>Again there were several reasons sighted by the both the US and Britian for going to war: WMDs, removal of Saddam from power, liberation of Iraqi people, setting up another democracy in the Middle East. Why do you get to pick and choose which count?

I don't get to choose which count and which don't, but the world at large AND your presidents DO.

President Bush I went into Kuwait because "this aggression must not stand" and the world was in concert with him. That people got their own country back was nice but there was nothing about "human rights" in the whole thing. One's own country is in no way a "human right" (if it was there would be chaos around the world).

President Clinton (WITH NATO) went into Serbia/Kosovo because of apparent genocide, which **IS** a "human rights" issue (but you didn't mention that one).

President Bush II went into Afghanistan because the (ruling) Taliban would not hand over the perpetrators/planners of the 9/11 attacks and the world was in concert with him. It had absolutely nothing to do with "human rights" and there would have been no war with Afghanistan if the Taliban had handed over Bin Ladin and his buddies.
That human right **may** end up improved as a result is just a side-benefit.

President Bush II went into Iraq because of the existence of WMD and because Hussein was known to be consorting with terrorists and THE WORLD WAS IN DISAGREEMENT. President Bush was not satisfied with the work of the U.N. Inspectors because they were not delivering the goods. So he had them removed so that he could attack.
Now, if you want to say that objectives INCLUDED getting rid of Saddam and establishing a democracy - neither of which were stated at the U.N. - then I hope you agree that citing avenging an attempt on his father's life and the need for oil are equally valid. I mean, you can't just pick and choose those that sound all apple-pieish and leave others out because they are not to your liking.

As you see, your Presidents established the reasoning, not me. In some cases the world agreed and in some they didn't.

As far as the "human rights" in Iraq, I suppose the uncounted Iraqi dead and maimed, destruction of an infrastructure (electrical, water, oil production) that was all operating and serving the people adequately before the war and has YET to be returned to that state do not implicate "human rights" at all. The U.S. and Britain (and some Spanish, Italians and Poles more recently) have collectively suffered less than 550 dead and a few thousand injured and all the injured have top-flight medical services available to them.
You are also aware, I presume, that the need to continue to appear lily-white has caused the U.S. to seek the services of foreign torturers. It is done routinely now, it is reported, and even has a name to disguise it from an unsuspecting public - "rendition"! Folks picked up in the U.S. are regularly sent to Syria, Pakistan and a few others for "rendition". Your folks sent at least 2 Canadian citizens along that route.

regards

>
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>>
>>>Jake