Gandhi was killed by his own people because he was a fool and believed that people had sense. He wa killed by a Hindu because they believed he had betrayed his own people by supporting the partitioning of India, rather than risk a war between Hindus and Muslims.
How can you define what keeping our nose out of foreign affairs is? In order to stay out of affairs and not try to have a say in other countries politics, we would be required to cut off all trade and all travel between other countries. Or would it be suggested that we allow trade with them and enrich these countries (not the countries but the dictatorships of them), but we dont enforce any type of civil welfare in the countries. In 2001 we had a net import balance of $5,820 million from Iraq, primarily from oil. In fact, in October after 911, we had the highest monthly trade balance at $717 million. Many other industrialized countries also have a significant balance of trade with them. With their substandard production values and costs, and worker policies this translates into massive riches for the leadership of those oil wells, which being state owned means the country's leadership (Hussein). Now, why should not the countries that provide the most monetary benefit for countries such as this (Iraq) be allowed to dictate how you treat your citizens. Our trade is an investment and we want to protect our investment by keeping a reign on how these people are treated. We prefer not to see A MILLION people killed over a futile 20 year campaign against Iran. We prefer not to allow a man who has and will continue to abuse his power and his citizens to remain in power. We left him alone for years because we had a worse situation with Iran. But now (at that point in time) he is the number one villian with a real face (vs. Osama - who the US would want more, but have a much more difficult time locating)
What about WW2? Was it justifiable for the US to retaliate against Japan for the attack on Pearl Harbor? REMEMBER, war wasnt officially declared against Japan until after troops and ships were mobilized to begin attack. So would it have been better to wait?
I suppose the US should have stayed out of the Euro theater and off Hitler's back since that wasnt in our country. We should have waited until he had killed or assimilated every person in Europe and became a really serious threat to Russia. Why would we get involved with this campaign of the war? Well, Britain for one requested assistance, and we after the Japanese attack, were not in the mood to allow another supervillian a chance to dominate the world.
Granted Iraq is not on such a scale as this. But it takes the guts of the most powerful country in the world, to not be afraid of critics and step up to the plate to answer the cries of the Iraqi people. They wanted hi removed, they begged for it. It wasnt often heard because most were too scared to open their mouths for fear of having their testicles crushed, or their babies eviscerated from their mothers wombs. But a few did, and a few managed to escape the country and seek asylum elswhere. I know that people are apathetic and dont care as long as they are safe and warm in the US and want to preach that we should remain aloof from the problems (but of course, we should bow to France and give tons of money to these countries while not having a say in their affairs); but to remove an evil man from a position he abuses and uses to torture his citizens, I will never deny is a noble persuit.
For those who love to chant the ignorant cry of "it's all about oil", please remember the CY-2464! Also, as you drive your 13mpg giant truck (to overcompensate for your tiny penis) to work and heat your house in the cold, and use a refridgerator and watch TV and type on the damned computer, remember its YOUR fault that we need more oil. If you want to change the world, get off your fuckin ass and create cold fusion.
