How was the significance of Iraq's evil dictatorship more prevalent than say, taking out North Korea's, instead? Why no same heartfelt concern for the Ethiopian, Rwanda, or Somalian genocides that killed way more people than Iraq? It doesn't add up that American interests were to protect a people needing democracy to those who idealistically and intrinsically hate Americans regardless of what aid they could use to 'free' them. The North Korean people would actually be more welcome to the Americans upon saving.
I agree on that part. That the people of Iraq were oppressed wasn't significant justification unto itself from a blood and treasure standpoint to go invading the country. But that was in addition to the evidence regarding Hussein having WMDs.
You presume that I'm making this up out of thin air, or what? The conservative political agenda of the Republican Party is to conserve the traditional institutions and people of those who they believe to be more original to the United States Nationality and pride. This, to them, is the Protestant Christians, the capital interests of the economic status quo and their social privileges. This is no different than Hitler's preservation of the past Aryan nationality to Germany.
There is a HUGE difference between what the conservative political agenda is and Hitler's National Socialists. For one, if conservatives really believed in preserving specific economic interests, they would not favor smaller government. Smaller government doesn't preserve said interests. If you want to control economic interests, you want large government. But conservatives believe in economic freedom. Historically, economic freedom is tied to political freedom, which is something else conservatives also believe very much in.
You are confusing the term "conservative" as it has traditionally been used in European nations to refer to aristocrats who want to preserve the status quo. Conservatives in America do not want to preserve any status quo. They do seek to be fiscally conservative, are often more socially conservative, and seek to preserve the main institutional pillars of our society, but those pillars are what allow constant change and dynamism. So for example, conservatives will argue against larger government in the economy because this infringes on the free market and thus its ability to create constant innovation, change, and economic growth. Conservatives argue in favor of liberal democracy because it permits constant change in the political system. The term "liberal" also gets misused. In America, "liberal" means of the left, but in other countries, the word refers to those on the right.
National Socialism actually had a lot more in common with progressivism (as like socialism, it is a variant of the left). Both favor large government, government control over the economy (or a large governmental presence in the economy), and eugenics. It was the progressives who drove the eugenics movement in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s. Here it resulted in the forced sterilization of many people. In Germany, it resulted in outright genocide. It was the United States where the eugenics movement originated, but then the Nazis picked up on it. And this is one of the reasons why conservatives are oftentimes so against things like abortion, because abortion means one is allowing the State to determine the intrinsic value of human life, which can be dangerous (IMO both left and right take the abortion issue to the extreme).
No one interpreted Bush as threatening nuclear war on them. It meant economic sanctions. Don't dismiss his intent by your assumptions. His words were clear.
I don't think he meant any specific policies, he just meant if you harbor terrorists, you will not be considered a friend of the United States.
Communism was illogically feared in the first place. The mere paranoia from the Americans is mostly responsible for the treatment of the U.S.S.R. towards their people by forcing unnecessary resources to fund their own nuclear armament and effort to secure themselves. I wander if they were just left alone from the beginning without external pressures and economic sanctions whether they would have either succeeded to a better society or learned earlier on their own to abandon it.?
!!!!!!!!!!!! Communism was illogically feared? And the U.S. was responsible for the treatment of the Soviets towards their own people? For one, they were left alone. They only got countered by the United States due to their constant aggression. Keep in mind what they did to Hungary and Czechoslovakia for example. They funded oppressive communist regimes all over the world, and regarding their treatment of their own people, that is because they were an authoritarian socialist system that was horrendously oppressive.