Simon, thank you for finally tackling my points head on.
The first point I refer to is that the US gives billions in aid to countries around the world which you followed with the red herring, "people spend more on lipstick". Lipstick has nothing to do with the fact that we give a TON of aid. What are we supposed to do, give more? I counter that no, we should not give more and really the people who are directly responsible for the plight of the third world man are that man's direct leaders. These leaders are often corrupt and use such aid for their own gain all the while stepping on the backs of their people to keep them dependent on foreign aid. I don't think that forein aid is a good idea for the world nor will it eventually cure the worlds ills. Redistribution of wealth has always put the power over so much into too few. Thats simply the way I see it.
Now I don't think we should go around, conquering the world and force these societies to accept democratic government either. But in the case of Iraq, plenty of evidence has been revealed over the last 12 years that Saddam Hussein has developed weapons of mass destruction, that he has used weapons of mass destruction and that he has aided terrorists with money, supplies, technology and training. This represents a threat to the free countries of the west. You say that the weapons inspections are making progress when Iraq first declares that they have no weapons, then when things don't look so good for them, they say "ok, well we have a few missles" and destroy them while they still have others and are making more. Saddam is not dealing in good faith and he is playing a shell game with the UN and the inspectors. Saddam only purpose is to somehow delay action long enough for him to either develop something usable or make it strategically hard for the US to act. He has no intention of disarming, you know it and I know it. He has never dealt in good faith, he has broken numerous agreements and he is an all around bad guy. This again represents a threat to the security of the US, especially in this post September 11 world where we realize that people can and will kill us in our own neighborhoods if given the chance. This does not mean "nuke the world" and the United States under President Bush has not responded as such, but it does mean we need to take prudent action when necessary.
Look Simon, I think you are a good guy, don't get me wrong, but we do have a difference of opinion on this. I did not mean to misrepresent you and I'm sorry for doing so. But call me a Bush "propagandist" if you like, but I prefer to say "supporter", its far far better than supporting the cause of a man like Saddam Hussein which I know you don't.