Your writing is not clear enough for me
to respond to all of your points. For

> nazi cunts who abused it for their ends

I'm guessing you mean Cheney and the
"neocons" who, for reasons of Mideast
oil and having a position to put more
pressure on Iran (note the map of
the huge number of
US military bases within 200 miles or
so of Iran -- it's amazing), etc. (which
can cover a lot if are willing to
believe).

I didn't like Gulf War II. I would have let
Saddam stay there since as bad as he was
we had no real way to engineer something a lot
better. And I would have ended the
no fly zone over Iraq as essentially just pointless. Leave carriers in
the Persian Gulf? Likely. Be ready
to jump back into air bases in Saudi
Arabia? Likely. Keep a big presence
in Kuwait? Okay.

But, whatever anyone thought of
W, Cheney, the neocons, Gulf War II,
in fact W, etc. had a lot of help
from Congress. There was plenty
of war authorization and money
voted.

Basically have to blame
the US voters. But, then, maybe
should blame the US MSM -- which I
do. One W Admin guy said that
Gulf War II would cost $120 billion
and got fired because W, etc. wanted
to say the cost would be $80
billion or some such. One guy
said that to occupy the country
(an occupying force is supposed
to ensure police protection)
would take 500,000 US soldiers,
and the W Admin fired him. Still
the MSM didn't raise a big stink and
basically public opinion went along
with Gulf War II. So, who to
blame? Basically the public.

For the places I said it was "bad",
that's a euphemism to admit it
was not good or acceptable but
to try to avoid a hot rehashing
of the old issue. If you believe
much worse than "bad", fine with me.

For Building 7, I've heard this
and that but really have tried to
avoid following the issue because
I doubt I could put back Building 7!

For the "nazi cunts", my guess is that
in part
they rubbed their hands with glee,
told themselves that with the Patriot
Act, our military, the NSA, CIA, etc.,
we were going to "take the gloves off"
and really roast the Jihaders and
teach them a lesson, not to mess with
the big bad US, that would last for
1000 years. For the Patriot Act
being constitutional, they just took
the position that it would take
years for legal cases to reach the
Supreme Court and get the act
struck down as unconstitutional
and in the meanwhile they would
bend the Constitution for a while
and roast all the Jihaders.

But the "nazi cunts" in the end
were quite dumb, wasteful, and
ineffective. One reason is, if want
to use Nazi techniques, they
were not enough like the actual
Nazis: In some area the Nazis
occupied, if something went "boom",
the Nazis were not reluctant to
round people up, torture them,
and level much of the area. The
US, however, kept wanting to be
loved from building roads, bridges,
hospitals, and schools, of course,
including for the girls (which
totally torqued off nearly every
Muslim for 2000 miles),
setting up
a constitution and holding free
elections. Didn't work at all well.

Instead, nearly every low level thug,
every leader of a small gang,
a large fraction of everyone with
some military training,
various tribal and Muslim leaders,
various international opportunists,
etc. all saw that the US occupation
in both Iraq and Afghanistan was
a golden opportunity for mischief,
money, power, etc. while the W
Admin and any of their Nazis didn't.
We were writing term papers on
the lessons from Ireland, Indonesia,
and anywhere else, guessing, etc.
The short answer is, we blew it.

Now we've got one in Syria: Assad
is an ugly guy. He's in with the
Iranians we are pissed at. He's
in with Putin who, I guess, stole
a Superbowl ring and is not running
a Jeffersonian democracy. A lot
of innocent people in Syria are
suffering. So, there is US political
pressure "to do something". A point
is, it's not the least bit clear that
there is a better alternative, and there's
a fear that the main alternative is
Al Qaeda or some such and worse. So,
it appears that Obama is trying to appear
to do 'something' but actually is doing
very little, which to me means that he
will please the people who want him
to do 'something' but not really seriously
piss off the people, like Palin, who
just want to "leave it to Allah". The
Pentagon has said no fly
zones, shooting down Assad's air force,
etc. would all be too darned expensive,
e.g., 400 US air sorties.

So, no politician wants just to come
out and say, "The situation stinks.
What we can do about it is next to
nothing -- we could throw in a lot
of effort and come up with a big,
fat zero for making the situation
better. In time, the civil war
will burn itself out with likely
not much impact on essential US
interests.". US politicians don't
want to say that. However,
politicians in nearly every other
country on the planet are eager
to say just this. Really, only
the US is all vulnerable to rushing
off to more 'international adventures'.

I believe that the US voters need to
wise up and then wise up the
politicians.