No, it wasn't to that effect. What I didn't like was that people were either spewing offtopic stuff or suggesting I said things I didn't say which annoys me.
If you read my posts you will realize that the only people I criticized in this thread are those who displayed blatant reading comprehension fail and suggested I said thing which I didn.t. I actually like the answers to actual question and asked follow up questions. Wtf are you talking about ?

Well, this question comes down to the question if "good policies" should be enforced (by using force). For example you could just as well ask the question:
"if we see human rights violation and it's possible/realistic (not too costly) to force violators to stop or to kill them, should we do that ?". My answer to that is yes.
You may then ask, what if they think we are violating some rights of their choice, they could use the same logic to kill us. Well, that's true, but my opinion on the matter won't change their behavior anyway but it can change ours and lead to greater overall good.
So yeah, I believe countries which now have nukes should use force to stop all other countries, especially the ones where radicalism and fundamentalism has big say, from attaining them.
I would prefer intelligence actions etc, supporting revolutions etc to achieve the goal but sometimes war might be the only choice.

I've read opinions of commentators who I think are very reasonable and well informed. I got the impression that Serbs would massacre people in Kosovo if it wasn't for military intervention. They massacred people before. I strongly support taking drastic actions to prevent slaughter of innocent people even if it requires killing even more aggressors.
My opinion about what would happen could be of course wrong as I am no historian and didn't spend that much time on the topic. What I am saying is this:
(there would be slaughter) -> (military intervention was good thing)
and for now I believe my premise.

With Iran it's like that:
if (likelyhood of nukes being dropped or handed to terrorists is very big) and (the chance of stopping it from happening is reasonable) and (the costs wouldn't be too big) and (other nations would support those actions) -> there should be military intervention

Ever heard of an embargo? we could just tons of countries to cut them off. I was pretty young when the Iraq war started, and not of voting age.

There are other ways to dominate a country without attacking them back. You also need to define "attacked." If they shoot a missile at us then who cares, if they do something larger than maybe i'd consider an attack.

Iran is already embargoed and sanctioned up the wazoo. It's not working.

Then here we must disagree. If you launch a missile at me, it's war, and I'm launching my much bigger missiles right back at you.

But the US didn't attack the Serbs to save lives. They did it to crush them into submission so they could exert their will over the region. Like when they starved 500,000 children to death and then Madeline Albright went on tv and boasted about it. Lives, even 500,000 children's lifes aren't even worth a barrel of oil to these people.

Guess we should have left France and Great Brittan to deal with Hitler on their own as well, How dare we stick our nose in their business!!!!!

When it costs more then a hundo to fill my tank. Isn't that what this is really all about it?

The reality is that the Iran nuke situation is 100% the result of the Iraq invasion, as would it be if North Korea develops nukes as well.

I mean let's face it, if you were the ruler of either of those two places OF COURSE you would want to develop nukes -- for self defense. The USA has already shown that they are willing to fabricate evidence to invade a nation to remove a regime without nukes, while doing nothing about nations that have them. Clearly a nuclear arsenal is the necessary deterrent to the threat of American invasion.

That may sound cold, but the fact is that Saddam Hussein wasn't overthrown because he was developing nukes, he was overthrown because he didn't succeed.

I agree with all that.
It's very tempting for Iran to get nukes. Their best strategy is probably to develop nukes and keep trying to calm down all parties involved for as long as possible which is exactly what they are doing apparently. This is the best strategy at least till the threat of military intervention becomes real.
On the other hand the best strategy for USA and Israel is to make threats as believable as possible without following through preferably.

The Cold War would have been cheaper.

The only thing i get from this is that you believe a US citizens life is more valuable than an middle east/3rd world life.

You advocate war and force as a good tool to project American moral goodness around the globe. In what way does dropping bombs on people preemptively a) show a global moral leadership, b) help the US national security. The best way to protect yourself is by not denying half the world access to weapons (which are only going to become easier and cheaper to aquire as time goes by), but to remove the desire of your enemies to do harm to you in the first place.

Agreed 100%. The fact is nuclear weapons are by far the best/cheapest means to having a strong national defence. In all honesty i don't begrudge any nation seeking to strengthen its national defence in the current global climate. The only way i can see disarmament happening and stopping countrys seeking such weapons is to create an enviroment where these countrys do not feel threatened.

Now am i being an idealist? possibly. Maybe the US standard of living could not be preserved in a world that does not fear them.

We accept that's what you would do. You are however simply wrong though to assert the only alternative is pacifism, there is a huge amount of space between the launch of a missile and war.

Sadly you are doomed to be dancing to the tune of the loonies who can provoke you to do something really stupid so easily.

So take away the embargoes and sanctions right?

The fact that only the openly racist jihadwatch and obviously racist daily mail have covered that story should tell you a lot about how real it is.

Didn't Hussein openly admits to having weapons of mass destruction (WMD)?
Didn't hussein use said WMD on his own people?
Didn't the UN vote to go into Iraq?

Are we still trying to blame George Bush?

Obama has more to do with this than any war on another country.

Saddam claimed, correctly, to not have WMD.
Yes, Saddam did use the US manufactured WMD on his own people decades earlier.
No, the UN didnt vote to go into Iraq.

The Bush Pentagon made up WMD evidence about Iraq. This is an uncontroversial fact at this point.

In what possible functional way is Obama even plausibly responsible for the fuel prices?

1- http://rightwingnews.com/foreign-aff...leaks-says-so/
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Inve...1623307&page=1
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/nyt-041303.gif
2-So you are claiming he longer had WMD because he used every single one on his own people?
3-The UN did vote to go into Iraq and force them to endure weapon inspections, however they never directly voted to declare war on the country.

PS-Congress voted to give power to Bush to invade Iraq, yet Bush still gets blame for the war. Still not sure why there should be blame on anyone for this war. This world is significantly better off after this war and will continue to better itself because of Bush's actions (source: see the 3rd world countries who were inspired to no longer put up w/ oppressive dictators).

The reason Obama is more to blame is his unfair bias toward clean energy.

1, there were traces dating back to the time we sold him these weapons, this isnt a surprise, no one who claimed there was WMD and Saddam was an active danger to our interests and security were doing so because a dozen shells with material that may or may not be mustard gas were found in a storeroom somewhere. I was aware of that wikileak fwiw, i was curious if you had heard of it, but certainly its worth noting there is a reason why these details werent being made public as a big "we told you so".
2, not entirely, a lot was used then, but WMD has use by dates and most of it had expired iirc.
3, yes they did and Saddam was allowing the inspectors in, though not cooperating as much as he should, however Hans Blix was reporting that they had no WMD and he was certainly in the best place to know.

Edit, forgot your forgot, in what way is a bias towards clean energy increasing fuel prices?

Bush is blamed for the war because it was his fault. There was overwhelming evidence all over the place that Saddam had no WMDs, and that is common knowledge. Best case Bush ignored what his intelligence people were telling him, worst case he either didn't bother with enough due diligence before committing US forces to the invasion of a foreign nation, or just outright lied.

I have to hand it to the right sometimes. The Iraq war was possibly the most colossal foreign policy screwup in the history of nation states and STILL you guys try and spin it favorably. That's dedication, man.

Lol at implying the Arab spring happened because everyone was modeling after the amazing democratic success story of Iraq. Oddly, you dont seem to think that the exact model of no lingering tolerating oppressive dictators and toppling them domestically that has spread thigh the Arab world would have been a vastly vastly vastly superior outcome than the hundreds of thousands dead from the Iraq war.

bush's courageous and bold actions inspired the Arab Spring itt