Then I can assure you that you seriously lack an education yourself with respect to politics and governments in general. Hussein was communistic, not national socialist [Nazi]. In fact, the United States is the only government that comes close in comparison to Hitler's conception of government, if any should.
Hussein was not a communist. His regime was modeled on the Nazi party. And the United States is about as far to the opposite of Nazism as one can get. Nazism was not a case of capitalism mixing with government. That is the classic, and wrong, claim of what fascism is. Fascism is a variant of socialism, where the government directs the economy. That is how the Nazi economy functioned and how the Italian government under Mussolini functioned. A really good book on the Nazi economy is The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze. A book to check also is Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.
Communism = the state in which all property and means of production are owned and operated by everyone in the community.
Capitalism = the state by which property and means of production can or may be owned by individuals. Such ownership is one's
capital.
Socialism = the economic means to distribute
social equality to its
members of some defined class. [non-members do not necessarily qualify] Members of one social group, for example, like the sick, qualify for some equal standard of treatment.
Nationalism = the belief that a particular group of people, like a race or population, is special and should be treated with that respect. It is the
pride in one's heritage, culture or historical roots of a select people who believe they must raise this consciousness in awareness of all to preserve a common collective mindset.
Democracy = any system that uses some form of voting procedure to elect governments or common laws to represent them. (Is interpreted ambiguously because no system beyond direct control and access to creating laws or immediate rule actually involves all the people all the time. Only Athens came close to it as a political reality.)
Dictatorship = any system by which rules or laws are 'dictated' by an authorized group or individual without the direct consent of the people at large. (This is an ambiguous term because when one country determines some official leader as 'dictating', it implies that it is
without consent when in fact the people may actually grant that consent in some form or another.)
I looked up the Wikipedia on Hussein and I stand corrected that he was likely national socialist. However, this definition doesn't distinguish America
without these qualifications. The national pride is the status that Americans grant their superiority over others by their promotion of its heritage, its ideals, and its imposition to preserve it throughout the world. The social programs are everywhere though they place more emphasis on granting privilege to non-governmental organizations to do these services. I would define the U.S. as National Social Capitalists. The Nazis, by comparison, had a unique National identity that limited them to German aboriginals, a race, whereas the States do not (at least for most people). But Social aspects of the Nazis was mainly in respect to a German middle-class distribution of equality and unfortunately, the select distribution of equal treatment in very derogatory ways to other groups (the Jews, the mentally ill, etc.) They were capitalistic though. They only socialized major means of production but enabled Germans to own private property and other means of production.
The U.S. nuclear arsenal is not what gives it its superpower status. I'd say it's the opposite, the arsenal is more a result of its superpower status. It's superpower status comes from its economic and military power overall and political influence. Regarding policing, nations that are virulent dictatorships that only seek a nuclear weapon to be able to bully other nations, should not be allowed to possess such weapons if anything can be done about it. Countries like the United States do not possess nuclear weapons for bullying purposes, they possess them for defensive reasons.
Okay, presuming fairness, is not your argument to allow the general public to be armed no different? The American nuclear arms arsenal represents the right of America to own a very big gun. Can you not extend the right to bear arms to your own citizens for a real fear of a possible takeover in such a delicate system like Liberal Democracy to other nations? If not, you presume that the totality of American citizens are far morally superior than other people in other nations.
George Bush is a tyrant too! The only thing that saved his ass from being impeached is that he immediately created a secrecy act to protect all Presidential conversations from being able to be legally heard or used for fifty years past his term in office. And nobody stopped him or seemed to want the possibility of a stain on American pride.
George Bush was not any tyrant. Far from it. You didn't see all of his critics in the government and the media getting thrown into prison or anything.
No?... just the creation of Homeland security and Guantanamo Bay and the ability to detain anyone without due process in the name of National Security!
Nor did Bush some how become a king. As for impeachment, he wasn't impeached because there was nothing to impeach him on. If anything, he had the least scandal-wracked administration of any recent president (including Reagan and now Obama).
How can you impeach a President when he disabled the court's, let alone the public at large, to be able to discover fair evidence? By creating that law to ban all Presidential communications from publicity extended to police investigations. What he did was to make it actually illegal to impeach a President until fifty years later, a time he is likely to be dead! And how do you measure this 'least scandal-wracked' qualification? The ideals of the Republican Party represented by Bush means that he believes in the smallest government possible (Dictatorship is the best) whereby favoring certain capitalist organizations to take over those powers (Aristocratic Rule without responsibility or representation its citizens) and installment of the ability to use tax dollars to foster particular religious affiliations (abandonment of the First Amendment). On ideology alone, his aim is clearly National Socialistic.
Granting Saddam's cruelty, the U.S. was not in any threat from him and your President and staff among other supporters around the world (including ours, Canada), knew this. The U.S. was wanting to finish their war with Saddam from the early nineties but he pulled back and gave no one justification to continue. 9/11 was a convenient excuse but they tried desperately to try to find a natural connection which wasn't happening. The lying and innuendos was their strategy. And though they did a dumb-ass job about it, half of our populations (that includes Canadian and UK opinions) are either really stupid or just willing to pretend they are.
They didn't lie. Outright lying would never have made it past the Congress.
Is this just another blind belief in something else that's 'supposed' to be?