I don't have time to respond to your whole post right now, horns, but I will later. For now I'm just going to pick a couple points:

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.

Oil is but one small part of the equation. The real money to be made is in selling weapons to the U.S. government, and getting contracts to rebuild shit after they blow it up. The people selling the weapons are, in many cases, the same people selling the news (and, as such, heavily influencing public opinion). (GE(NBC)) sells expensive bombs to the US government. When they drop bombs, and need to buy more, GE makes money. Thats why it's in their financial interest to make sure the public supports war, and make sure the right people get elected (through our wonderful legalized-bribery system called campaign contributions ). I'm sure you're aware of the Haliburton contract(s?) for large undisclosed sums of money; the fact that the Vice President was their CEO, and they're still run by the administration's friends seems a bit relevant.

How would we "have a right" to go in there when we cannot garner support from you in Iraq?
The immediacy of the situation in Rwanda makes it different. I still don't really support the U.S. intervening; I simply said that the case for intervention was a little bit more valid there. Saddam hasn't recently indicated that he was going to step up his evil actions; he was continuing to do the same things he'd done for years. And he wasn't killing millions of people; the only single force thats responsible for that many deaths in Iraq are international sanctions.

Noam Chomsky said that there would ba a 'silent genocide'with thousands dead in Afghanistan - but it never happened.
I don't know what Chomsky said, but there were thousands killed in Afghanistan.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...002/0831brahimi.htm
(weather it was committed by US troops, or, as in the case above, by their allies with their protection, doesn't make the people any less dead or put the us any less at fault)

Ted Rall said it was all for an oil pipeline- that was never pursued
I don't know a lot about this issue, but I was under the impression that it was being built. Heres what a quick google search turned up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

you supported the Taliban? Thats what you seem to be saying.
Where did I say that? You still seem under the delusion that if I don't support bombing a group, I actually support them. You need to get it through your skull that war is actually not a good default course of action.

ah, i've already wasted longer than I intended replying to you. i'm done for now..