Your not going to convince anyone and may even discourage fellow liberals by such over the top comments and self contradictions. You will most certainly convince Independents like me that liberals are hopelessly out of touch with reality on this issue.

GB1 stopped the war early because we looked like bullies and did not have a mandate to overthrow Saddam. I, the majority of Americans, and all the pundits I heard were behind that decision. In retrospect it looks like a mistake. Bush lost my confidence and oppened the door for my eventual vote for Clinton by failing to support the Iraqi uprisings he encouraged. I would guess many others here felt the same way even if it didn't effect their future votes.

You can't argue against foreign intervention as being morally wrong and then argue we should have interevened in Ruanda and have any credibility. I think we should have interevened in Ruandal, but there is the rather practical matter of preparation. We were not prepared to intervene. If we had wanted to help we would have still arrived too late to stop a large portion of the slaughter that occured rapidly. Our response was also delayed by waiting for an international consensus on whether intervention was appropriate. By the time there was any momentum for such an approach it was obvious that an internal solution was in at hand. If you want the US to intervene effectively in such situations then you must support a Unilateral US approach to such problems and the concept of the US as the worlds policeman.

This is a tough conundrum that all the heated political name calling does nothing to resolve. Tragedies such as Ruanda will continue as long as no one is willing to intervene expiditiously. However, doing so will cause resentment and anger in other countries. These are some of the complicating factors I was thinking about in an earlier post when I said we couldn't overthrow every tyrant. The compromise is to take out tyrants when they threaten our vital interests. A self defense pretext is more palatable than the US taking on a self apponted role of world's judge, jury and executioner.

It's a shame that the petty self conceits of the likes of Russia, France, and China as well conservative's demands that use of force require vital national interest to go to war prevent US intervention in many just causes. I think that it should require only the public's interest and soldiers willingness. If US armed forces and the public believes a cause is worth fighting for on moral grounds I think we should regardless of the presence of national interest.

Regards,
Mark