I like this, thumbs up.

Thankyou sir!

Unless we are for psychopathic dictatorships, it's really a tactical question, not a moral one.

Yes, thankyou for expressing that in your own words. It is enlightening.

Are you familiar with the Just War Theory?

I am familiar with the term, and I have read the Wikipedia article on it. I suspect that all I am doing is trying to get the 2003 Iraq war agreed to as part of Just War Theory.

What is free?

Ok, that's another assumption. People have different definitions of "freedom". Mine is "living under a rational, humanist, non-subjugating (in that order) government".

Sure, that's a sovereign leader (again, an individual, one bad apple) committing human rights abuses which should be punished swiftly and appropriately.

Well, it took 23 years to punish him. By rights you should be complaining we were too slow to bring him to justice, not that we shouldn't be doing it, because it's no worse than using an iphone.

And maybe there's another assumption at play here, which I can't name (maybe you can help me?) but I don't equate a dictator ordering tongues to be chopped out for exercise of freedom of speech, with a democracy choosing to use capital punishment on criminals.

The Iraq war was misbegotten from the beginning. The justification (that they were working on nuclear weapons) was a lie told to the American people, and everybody else.

There were multiple reasons given, not just one. It was better for the US to focus on that one thing so as to not spook allied dictators.

Worse, the US did not display insight into how to remove a mostly hated dictator without collapsing the whole society into chaos from which they have still not recovered. It was an altogether inhumane AND incompetent operation.

No, this is being wise after the fact. If the US had done it any differently, and it had failed, you would instead be on here saying it was "obvious" that democracy wouldn't work with the approach taken. The societal collapse was a facet of Iraqi culture in the absence of an oppressive force. With the information available at the time, it was necessary to remove that oppressive force so that the Iraqis would genuinely believe that they were free. As a result, 300+ political parties started up, and there were long lines to join the new Iraqi security forces, despite the fact that the country was still under US occupation. It could have been very different if neither of those things had happened, and democracy failed.

The Iranian people will have to work out their own liberation -- not because nobody cares about them, but because it seems highly unlikely that the US, or any other power, can confer liberation upon them.

This is actually part of the reason why it's so important to go into Iran. Until we actually get in there and do it, you won't believe it is technically possible. We don't have enough liberations under our belt to prove that it is possible. I would expect a result like Panama. I trust the majority of Iranians to manage their affairs. But you won't believe it until you see it.

We contributed a great deal to the Iranian people's previous suffering under the Shah. Let's not repeat the gift.

If you think the US is responsible, partly or fully, for the predicament that the Iranians find themselves in, then that's even MORE reason for the US to fix the problem. The Iranian people yearn for freedom, but they have no way to defeat automatic weapons. The same thing that stopped the Iraqis succeeding in their 1991 uprising. The same thing that stopped the Chinese in 1989.

However, the Iraq war was a mess

In my opinion, it was conducted near-perfectly, given what was known at the time. There were a lot of people who said it was impossible for Arab Muslims to have democracy, so the US really did pull a rabbit out of the hat there. If you have any specific complaint about US action, I am happy to explain why I think it was the exact right thing to do. Including the pullback in Fallujah which infuriated the US soldiers who were ordered to do that.

What country are you hoping will be the next target and what is it you'd like to see the "free world" doing?

Iran is my preferred target. We can use the excuse that the government has an official philosophy of "Death to the US" and has a nuclear program. So we don't spook the other dictators who will follow, as we just want "one more war". I believe that the majority of the Iranian people will welcome liberation, and we don't need to do any nation-building. Just quick in an out. Basically help them with their revolutions that they try now and again and get mowed down by automatic weapons. Make the next revolution a success with the aid of US air power.

Who is this "we" and what gives you a duty or even a right to "construct" the world we all share in your image of justice?

"We" is the free world. And yes, it is a stated assumption that we want a just world, instead of dismissing this world as some sort of purgatory that we just need to accept.

imaginary slavers that seem to exist everywhere and anywhere but in the mirror

Ok, there is another assumption I have that dictators are enslavers while ordinary citizens like myself are not. Would you like to see video of Saddam's goons cutting out someone's tongue? Can you not see a difference between that and using an iphone?

Thanks for the explanation. I have tried again without the link.

I'd be interested in talking to you privately about it, but I am not able to contact you privately for some reason.