Are nations allowed to atone for past mistakes?

kick me off...

" without a major war or terrorism on a massive domestic scale to contend with."
Bush did not have to contend with terrorism in such a wasteful way. Irak has no ties to Al Qaeda. It was a complete utter waste of men and ressources, unless Bush plans on taking all the oil. In that case it "may" be a good trade for human lives.

The Middle East and terroism is a problem for all countries of the world! Get a grip!

"The Middle East and terroism is a problem for all countries of the world! Get a grip!"
I don't think any nice quiet countries like canada, the netherlands or any scandinavian countries have ever had to deal with terrorism on a large scale in recent years.

"As for dumping money to the people of this country... yeah great idea, get more people thinking that giving my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of millions of hard working Americans, to people who didn' t work for it is a good idea."
It CAN be a viable economic policy as every dollar you give will be used to buy something, thus boosting consumption. I don't mean it is always viable, just sometimes, such as when a large percentage of your population is obscenely rich while others are very poor.

" Now, medicare needs to be fixed so that the people who saved the world from Hitler and WWII (your welcome, my grandparents and other AMERICAN grandparents) can have their prescriptions for less than their life savings...that's a good idea, but being passionate in your eyes is just doling out money..at least you haven't given me a reason to think otherwise....Care to explain some changes? Or do we want to play the blame game all friggin year?"
Saved the world from Hitler? If anything the Russians did the most in that war.
And being passionate is trying to allow people to live happier lives. This often means dolling out money for food, housing and medicine.

"Take our mone with us and fend for ourselves. Then we will watch to se who stands up for the under dogs of the world."
Because the US stands for the underdogs of the world? Oh, please, are you really so naive to think that the Bush Admin went to Irak out of sheer benevolence? If that were the case Irak should be on the road to being rebuilt by an international group and not rebuilt by the US to fulfil its great thirst for oil.
You are correct in saying it is good to bring down a tyrant, but there are other places in the world who need help more. What's more, Bush's case for the war on Irak was not based on moral obligation as much as protection from supposed WMD production. Bush should have sent the troops to NK where the people live under a communist despot and their leader made no strong attempt to hide his nuclear program.

"I admire nuetral countries, you never have to hear them profusely criticize other countries for sacrificing their men for the safety of the world."
Save the world? From Sadam he was being extremely cooperative in recent years that it wasn't worth the vast and wasteful military effort to boot him.

"They both continue or continued with programs that called for UN sanctions...UNTIED NATIONS economic sanctions that ended up starving large portions of their populations."
There is no proof Irak was continuing its programs recently. The UN attempted to offset the starvation by using the food-for-oil program.

"Also 12 years of UN resolutions...UNITED NATIONS resolutions to get Iraq to comply with WMD inspection and removal yielded nothing until the US went in. 12 YEARS."
What do you mean yielded nothing? The inspectors found nothing because its quite probable that there's nothing to find! Sadam was complying with every US demand barring leaving the country and even with US troops there not a single piece of convincing evidence concerning Irak's nuclear weapons has been found.