Originally Posted by piscivorous
Or perhaps it would help you understand if you did a search for "Iraq Mass Graves" or "Iraq Kurd Gas Attack" and you then might come to a better understanding of the meaning of how humanitarian acts; except for your BDS you might too be able to see that liberating the Iraqi population was a humanitarian act. I guess it is all relative sitting in front of your computer safe and sound in your own little fantasy world.
That's a totally reasonable argument. I wish it was one we could have had prior to the invasion of Iraq. Instead, we had wild goose chases after barely-existent WMD's (refer back to Bob and Mickey's old discussions of 2 years back about chemical weapons and anthrax, and whether they even count as WMD's, before responding here), and constant intentionally misleading references to Iraq and al Qaeda from the VP's office.
However, hopefully you are not saying that our actions in Mesopotamia have been an unqualified good, for us or the Iraqis. That would be simply untrue. Of course they have had good effects. In my opinion, the bad outweighed the good, but I can see possible alternative weightings. It's not an unarguable 'humanitarian act' if more bad things than good happened.