Irrelevant and inadmissable information.
The President lacks the prerequiste knowledge for the meaning of the words “sovereign nation” as illustrated by the following evidence:

“Tribal sovereignty means that; it’s sovereign. I mean, you’re a — you’ve been given sovereignty, and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.” —Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

But what really shows we the people have been Pown’ed is this statement which pretty much acts as an axiom. All other statements about the president are corollaries and must comply with this one:

“I’m the commander — see, I don’t need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being president.” —as quoted in Bob Woodward’s Bush at War

Therefore it follows that this MUST be true:

“The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself.” —Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

Q.E.D.

It’s a civic responsibility to be informed about the things your country is doing. It is possible to see past the misinformation on FOX/CNN and understand events from their true perspectives with a relatively small amount of personal research, which you’ve done to the extent that you understand the current level of disinterest members of government have in telling the public the truth about things.

Contrary to popular belief, the Presidency is still interested in catering to popular opinion, if for no other reason than to achieve its other goals. If popular opinion were consistently well informed and there was a constant challenge from the public against government policy, the situation would indeed begin to turn around. Slowly, but it would.

I’m still optimistic enough to say a majority informed public would have a powerful impact. If this were not so, any hope of freedom in America is lost.

So who are the American people supposed to elect? Would John Kerry have solved the problem? I think it’s safe to say no. Left wing, right wing. It’s still the same bird. How can the American people stop a political machine like the American government? They tried in the 60’s and early 70’s and failed, what are their options? Protests? I’ve been to 20+ protests. They don’t work. At all. Zero. Violence? Ha ha. Voting? That’s even funnier.

The American people are fucked, trapped in their own failing system, helpless to stop a government growing ever more fascist by the day. The world grows to despise us, we, the most spoiled nation in the world. Many of us live blind to the crimes our country commits against humanity. Still, even those who recognize our country’s horrible actions aboard and diminishing freedoms at home fail to find an effective solution.

Back to your question though “what did the American do to intervene on their country’s behalf before it committed an International crime?” and I respond by begging you, someone, anyone for an answer to how we could possibly intervene on our country’s behalf! What can we do for christ’s sake? Give me an answer to that, that won’t be lost in the propaganda of our corporate controlled media/government.

The average Iraqi is not better off. Quite the opposite - the UN Secretary General has made it clear that Iraqi’s have less societal infrastructure and personal security than they did before the invasion.

Even if positive results could have been achieved — there was no chance of that, even G.W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld commented during previous administrations that an invasion/occupation of Iraq would constitute a humanitarian disaster, and it has — the method by which they were achieved was illegal.

No chance that Iraq may be better off now?