dear quexalcote. for starters, i'm not arguing with you so please don't take it that way ok? i respectfully honor everyones right to an opinion. i mean that.
i understand your desire to make a point in all of this that, yes, a horrible, despotic, tyrrant was removed from power. (saddam hussein) this is true. however, if that were absolute priority for the u.s invading and occupying iraq, then why saddam hussein, of all despotic tyrrants in the world?? there ARE others just as bad as him, you know? why not invade those others countries? what about iraq carried the most weight to make it top priority?
could it be that iraq sits atop the second largest oil reserve in the world? could it be that america wants to get a foothold in the middle-east so that u.s. policy is better 'enforced' in this region? keep in mind that all of the bush cabinet has a vested interest in the oil business. they are ALL corporate suits and ties. their 'eschelon' stands to make a lot of money off of this move, now and in the days to come.
all of this aside, the u.n. just voted NOT to extend americas 'exemption from war crimes' in international courts. the u.s responded by saying something to the effect of: "well, this may prevent u.s. participation in peacekeeping missions in the future". makes ya wonder how much the current u.s. gov't is really trying free innocent people who are being tortured and such across the world.