>a legal invasion From who's point of view? I don't care if the invading force claims it is legal or necessary. > I would definitely be upset, but it would n

>a legal invasion From who's point of view? I don't care if the invading force claims it is legal or necessary. > I would definitely be upset, but it would not be murder Well what if it was the mafia who "saved" you? >During a legal war, it is clearly legal, provided the belligerent obeys the law of war. The problem with this line of thinking is it's completely one sided. If an entity declares war on another entity the second entity can't simply say "we don't accept". They are at war at this point and now all sorts of nasty and immoral things become technically "legal". This is compounded even more with the US' current "war", the ludicrous "war on terror". >The quality of life in Afghanistan is probably better today for 90% of Afghans than it was in 2000, I need some citations on that. And non-US military (or pro-US military) ones. >In Iraq, the quality of life is absolutely better for the Kurds, and quite possibly better for most Shia, than it was under Saddam. Around 2009 and 2010, it's probably reached the turning point of being better on a daily basis than it was in the past, at least for those who didn't leave Iraq; there are definitely displaced persons who are worse off. I disagree. And my "displaced" friends would also disagree. The people I know who do mission work there would also disagree. I wish I could somehow inspire you to get your news from sources that aren't so... sympathetic to the US' imperialistic causes because the picture your sources are painting seem to be particularly rosy. >I don't think the decrease in quality of life from 2003-2007 was inherent to the invasion, but to incompetence during the occupation It was a direct result of the invasion. Sadam was gone, extremists who were afraid to do certain crimes became free to do them. It's very clear.