roachboy

first, have a look at the report itself--the last link above--it is more up to date and more transparent as to method than what you posted. it is a small-ish pdf file. i posted the bbc press release to signal the report's release, that's all--it was not posted as a substitute for the report itself.

secondly, my argument against your post was not quite as you took it--what i was saying is that on its own human rights abuse by a given regime are not free-standing problems insofar as american policy is concerned, particularly not if you line up this administration's actions with the broader history of american foreign policy.
this is not a problem or quirk that is particular to george w bush either--frankly, i would find the argument that you make far more compelling if the americans had intervened in rwanda, say, on human rights grounds. but they didnt----the point is that this cuts across the republican/democrat divide..in the end, it is a function of the basic logic that shapes american foreign policy as a whole.

the reason i went this direction in response to you was to say that i do not doubt that saddam hussein was a brutal guy, but you cannot seriously expect me or anyone else frankly to accept that this fact prompted or justified anything about the war in iraq. the cynicism comes from the history of american foriegn policy--you cannot pretend it is without grounds.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite