Interesting argument, but It would hold more weight if it was applied consistently. I seem to remember right wing anger over Clinton's decision to send troops to Kosovo to end the slaughter, with numerous "wag the dog" and "another Vietnam" references. Also, where was this altruistic spirit of saving innocents from slaughter in Rwanda or an number of African countries. It seems that those who support the impending invasion have a new reason/excuse everytime the current excuse is shown to be lacking in substance. First I hear we're going after Iraq because of WTC, then find out Bin Laden and Hussein are most likely not partners and probably enemies; then I'm told were attacking because Saddam has WOMD, but again little to no real evidence (and for those who believe there is evidence its just classified, N.Korea's weaponry and WOMD capabilities have been plastered all over the papers and tv, as well, a private session with pertinent world leaders with the evidence would be in order, which hasn't happened); then I'm told he's a threat to the american way of life, well given the current state of disrepair of Iraq's military, this is untrue on its face; now I'm being told we need to stop the brutal dictator from torturing  his people, as much as I agree this is true, where was this argument in the beginning, or 8+ years ago during the first go around.

Its not that those opposed to the current administration's desire to attack a sovereign nation are peaceniks, appeasers or ignorant of the evils that abound in this world. It is that most believe the decision is based on ulterior motives that have little to do with altruism or compassion and will quite likely cause more problems than it may solve. And that many innocents will die.