[Hoplite]

You don't appear to be able to follow the conversation - the war was fought to end Serbian repression of Kosovar Albanians and prevent refugees from destabilizing the Southern Balkans.

The "100,000 dead" issue arose from a statement to the effect that there were over 100,000 Albanian men unaccounted for inside Kosovo, and given Serb atrocities in Bosnia, there was reason to fear for their health.

Does the lack of finding WMD's in Iraq or the hyperbole surrounding the issue prior to our invasion invalidate our actions there?

No.

Same - same with Kosovo.

[thoughtomator]

Even granting that assumption for the sake of argument, we still lack a valid basis for US intervention. Concurrently there was Saddam, violating daily his ceasefire signed with us, and with a million plus confirmed (not suspected) dead to his 'credit', and constantly threatening not only minor trade routes but in fact the entire global energy economy. Yet we did not intervene there. We watched the slaughter of six million in Rwanda and even more in Burundi and Zaire and did absolutely nothing. In Sri Lanka there were over 50,000 confirmed dead and many many more tortured, disappeared, and maimed, but to date we still have not intervened. And there were many many cases like this, worldwide - yet the only intervention was against Serbia.

What then justified attacking Serbia in the context of no action in many similar and even in far worse cases?