I am sorry the Darfur argument doesn't buy you anything. It doesn't show the invasion is wrong
Of course it doesn't prove the invasion itself wrong, it simply shows the lack of consistancy in foreign policy with the precedent set by invading Iraq regarding the humanitarian mission. It also illustrates the point that we can't go 'round the world engaging ourselves in massive military maneuvers willy-nilly.
In regards to the oil sanctions, it was less a cost to Americans to engage in economic warfare and keep Saddam down then plunder ourselves attempting to do something George H.W. Bush himself stated was impossible to do - invade Iraq and withdraw easily while accomplishing the mission. Now we are paying the price. For what? I don't think it has been worth the cost so far. With the continued passage of time, money, and lives, it will prove to be even less so. Have you seen tangible benefit from this engagement? I would guess not. Particularly when there was no immediate threat, which was the primary reason we went to Iraq, correct?
As I told you earlier that the Iraq War and Afghanistan War cause us 1% GDP, we can pay for it. We spent 25%of our GDP for WW2. If we can't, then there is a lot of explaination to be done for WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War. Those wars cost significantly more.
There are much better reasons given (and ones that panned out) for our involvement in the other wars, don't know about Vietnam, but I'd agree with the reasons for WW1, 2, and Korean War, so in my mind, the cost of the war is tied to the cost of not engaging in them vs. the substantive value of the reasons given; ones that could even constitute a blank check. Right now, we're in a deficit hole, but the answer from this administration seems to be "spend away", I think it's a bit irresponsible to spend money we don't have on flimsy reasons.
You do a good job explaining Bush's reason juggling, but wouldn't you be suspicious if an individual asked you for something for one reason, then began offering different reasons to continue giving when the first doesn't pan out? This is the feeling resonating with many who question our involvement in Iraq. You may say that Bush entered into Iraq because Saddam broke the cease-fire, but if you ask most Americans why, they will tell you that it is because we are there to "kill terrorists", "because Saddam was part of 9 / 11", or because there were WMD's Saddam was going to use". This was part of the insinuation / whisper campaign set up from the white house that allowed them to soften citizen's opposition to war in Iraq. Don't think for a second the American people would have agreed to invading Iraq simply because of a few SAM's shot at our planes in no - fly zones. Now that we're in Iraq and the WMD's have yet to be found (possibly destroyed after '91, and maybe remnants in '98 according to the Duelfer report) Americans are forced to pay the price for a war they would not have had had we not rushed to war.
In regards to the Iraqi liberation:
Do I want to pay for Iraqi infrastructure and health care, no. I'd rather that money go to taking care of American infrastructure and healthcare, I'm not for other nation building, particularly ones we should not have invaded in the first place. Good arguments, though, you're on fire, I simply don't agree with you.
I find the war in Iraq nearly indefensible.
...also, since the oil sanctions were at the crux of the argument, I've got to say that it is Saddam's fault that he failed to provide the food to his people, though avenues to that food were provided, that's not America's fault.
