[TeenagedConservative]

I asked: "If that’s true, why not attack one of the countries that was actually ruled by a jihadist government, like Iran or Syria?"

You responded: "There is more hope of the Iraqis emerging out of the Middle East's Islamic imposed dark Ages than a country ruled by full blown jihadist government, like Iran or Syria."

Now there's some logic for you. "Iraq's a threat. It must be neutralized." "Then why not attack bigger threats first, such as the state sponsors of the 9/11 hijackers?" "They're not receptive to re-education. We must pick easy targets."

If the point is to eliminate threats, we attack the big threats. I can accept, if not agree 100% with this reasoning. But you are saying that must balance that goal with "planting seeds of democracy," engaging in blatant nation-building and dragon-hunting. This is exactly what the Founders warned against. Federalism protects the states from the government because the Founders knew the government would eventually try to centralize power. Interventionism leads to imperialism, which forces an extraordinarily powerful central authority.

[dynoman]

*Sigh*

Re. the threat posts 80-85;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323498/posts?page=85#80

Re. nation building;

Democratic Freedom

There has been a major shift away from propping up the lesser of two evils to trying to foster environments of Democratic Freedom. It didn't start with G.W. Bush either.

Think about this for a while especially Dr. R.J. Rummel's work then you might understand better why Iraq, why now.

[dynoman]

I don’t think our founding fathers would have the slightest problem with us trying to share the discovery of Democratic Freedom with others.

It is not “engaging in blatant nation-building and dragon-hunting”.

It’s a win-win for all except totalitarian dictators who lose control of their slaves.