I wasn't suggesting (or i didn't mean it to appear) that we were wrong to invade Iraq (the first time), I was implying that the motives for the 'liberation of Kuwait' were not as clear cut and morally just as the government would have had us believe.
This was apparent when, the end of the iraqi (is that how you spell it??) occupation of Kuwait indicated a restoration of the political status-quo. Bush ("Read my lips" senior) having encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam, pulled Allied Forces out allowing him [Saddam] to slaughter all of his perceived opponents. We stood idly by as he gassed thousands (and this time I do mean thousands) of Kurds. Where were we then as a peacekeeping humanitarian force?
I do agree though in so far as in terms of human casualties, this war pales into insignificance with regard to comparative body count. However, as for the number of Americans dying, how many is enough? In my opinion, a proud military with a great sense of tradition and honour is being betrayed by it's government for the sake of oil, not justice.
Do you think Bush loses sleep over those two American sons who are never coming home again to their families?
Essentially my point relates not to the moral standing and outlook of your average American, more the core motivation of your average former coke addict commander in chief. I personally cannot get in support of a man who is already buoyed and influenced by an 'army' of corporations. (was going to write 'cannot get behind a man who...' yeah that didn't work for me)
This rant isn't necessarily whining that Bush is a particularly bad example of a president, it is suggesting that the apparent moral decay found within his administration is inherent in most modern political figures due to the nature of modern politics.