wow.
"our politicians all making a (financial) killing in the (human) killing business"
how exactly are we making money off of going into Iraq. I think if we wanted to make money and have cheap oil, we would have lifted the sanctions aginst Saddam and bought all the oil we wanted. we could have done that right?
But no you are holding our morality against us. you see the sanctions(you previously decried) were approved UNANIMOUSLY by every nation in the UN. The threat of military action against Iraq was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the UN(15-0). So besides being blindsided by nations who arguably were looking out for their own interests and not for those of the Iraqi people, how can you say that the action is across the board "illegitimate".

"I do think, though, that the U.S. is hardly qualified to bring people to a war crimes court that it itself doesn't recognize for it's own people."
I personally don't think that we should sign onto that war crimes court. The reason being that if we do, the cards are unfairly stacked against us. The European nations you so gleefully align yourself with are all dependent on the military might of the United States. Never in the history of the world has there been so many countries reliant on one for their security. the argument that they do not want us there should not be put forth here either my friend. any one of those countries can ask us to take our personel from the military bases. They do not because they want our protection. With more military in other countries defending their sovereignity, assisting with crisis, backing up action againt ethnic violence, now we are to be subject to a war crimes tribunal that we did not have a real hand in designing? Its like an employee telling a boss how much that boss should make. i'm not saying we should dictate the terms solely(it needs to be revised), but there are many countries that claim to be part of this wolrd community who are not democratic. we don't take orders from countries that don't represent their people. i happen to agree with that.

"military action in Iraq... has mostly killed honorable people"
REALLY!!! WOW!?? you have a soft spot for fascism huh? there is overwhelming and undeniable evidence from Iraqis that the Fayadheen, paramilitary forces and republican guard were some of the most bloodthirsty animals ever seen in our time. cutting off the heads of women in the street, torturing indiscrimnately, raping girls in front of their parents and cutting the tongues out of those who speak out. This is from the mouths of all of the Iraqi people. Do you have the audacity to say that you know what that regime was like more than the people who live there? I don't give a flying fuck if those forces are killed because they could have given up and taken part in a democracy at any time. you pity their fate? why? Are you getting your news from www.Indymedia.com? that would explain a lot.
Just how do you justify classifying our troops as "Christian invaders partaking in an action that is religiously motivated" when our record shows quite the opposite. Our attack of Japan did not turn it into a "little american colony" nor did action in Panama, Grenada, Germany, or Bosnia(of which the US contributed more troops, money, ships, and planes than any other nation). You are making a BLIND ASSUMPTION based on some kind of adolescent viewpoint - that behind every conceded good there is an evil lurking and behind every truth there is a lie. Name a country we attacked for "religious" reasons in the last 20th century.

Yeah, Rwanda. Its funny how Clinton is considered the "good" president when he was downright cowardly when facing the events of Rwanda(i didn't hate Clinton-i consider myself neither dem or rep). Fact is, there are so many facets of your stand against this war that through hindsight you conveniently omit when mentioning Rwanda. Had we gone in, it would have been EXACTLY the seemingly "religiously motivated incursion on a sovereign nation by the agressive superpower" Would you havew not said that the Hutus and the Tutsis have the right to sort out their country for themselves. How would we "have a right" to go in there when we cannot garner support from you in Iraq? It is a double standard.

there were antiwar people against action in Bosnia. There were antiwar people against action in Afghanistan. Both have been proved patently wrong. Noam Chomsky said that there would ba a 'silent genocide'with thousands dead in Afghanistan - but it never happened. Ted Rall said it was all for an oil pipeline- that was never pursued. Children in Afghanistan are back in school and a cycle of ignorance and violence is being broken. Thousands upon thousands of Afghanis are able to return to their hometown and start to live again without the Taliban taking them away for having a radio. You really have to tell me what it is you wanted in Afghanistan - you supported the Taliban? Thats what you seem to be saying.

There are pockets of resistence that will surge up for years and years to come. thats okay, because the US hasn't left yet and those animals will get their due for trying to deny the people from being able to run their own country. are you against that?

as for the simplistic two groups you have defined(A or B) i belong in group B i guess because i don't think of killing as wrong if we are killing killers. Freedom has to be fought for - and this is self evident. i defy you to put forth an example of a nation with freedom that was not fought for. hard to do huh?

as for your assumption that the Iraqi's were "honky dorry" under Saddam, perhaps you should read about the rose tinted glasses we were all forced to wear thanks to prominent news organizations that refused to report the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html