Sorry I missed, well… I did not see this section…
Not at all, but there is a major difference. In the first case, Saddam was personally responsible as the dictator and head of a murderous apparatus that did not provide justice. In the second case, the murders are being committed by terrorists and criminals not US forces. Those deaths that result from US military actions are not in the same category as those that were deliberate in nature, especially given that they targeted civilians not military personnel.
Not at all. Murders are occuring. This is true. But the US need not guarantee that no murders take place. We cannot even do this in our own country. What we can do is to try to ensure that the murderers will be brought to justice AND to ensure that the state itself is not willing and complicit in those murders.
Not at all. My main reason for invading Iraq is and always has been regime change EVEN over wmds. I am happy with the results BUT because of that regime change, conditions on the ground may improve since we have removed a terrible dictator. BUT that is also largely up to how the Iraqi people want to live. This sectarian violence is to be deplored but it cannot be laid at the feet of the US occupation, at least not morally.
correct, but how it illustrates your case is something that is a bit more problematic.
Care to prove that. How much of Iraq’s oil is now or has been in the past three years of the occupation controlled by the US, its allies or major Western oil companies?