[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?

[Hoplite]

I've given you the basis for intevention.

You're simply ignoring it and going with the bodycount straw-man.

When Saddam threatened our oil supply, we confronted him militarily. He hadn't threatened it since and is no longer in a position to do so.

Had he moved against the Kurds in Northern Iraq, we would have intervened - he didn't, so we didn't.