You are arguing against a position I don't hold.  Please see Vali Nasr's "The Shia Revival" if you are interested in depth causes and impacts of wars in the Gulf.

You are correct.  The war in Iraq is unjustifiable from a War on Terror point of view.  The motivation and opportunities for enlistment for terrorism has increased.   From the point of view of the war on terror, the Iraq War is counter productive.  Yes, Bush lied.

I don't support Soviet style communism, and frankly, I think you are hard put to find evidence that Hillary Clinton supports it either.

No one is calling for intrusion into parental rights.  Some parents need help with their responsibilities.  While reproduction comes pretty naturally, parenting is learned behavior.  People who want to change negative or unproductive behaviors generally need support.  Why shouldn't government play a role in providing that support?  Don't we already with Headstart and federal and subsidies for Universities and Colleges?

You assume I think the Democrat Party are more capable of solving problems than Republicans.  The Democrats controlled the Congress for thirty years, we still have the problems.  You should check your facts.  If the Arkansas Ridge Runner you refer to is former President Clinton, you will find his budgets reduced spending.  Primarily on Social Programs.  Your letting your patisan bias interfere with your critical thinking.

Republican partisans seem to blame Clinton for Bush's failures.  The military Clinton left was stronger than the one Rumsfeld sent to war.  Remember how Rummie faced off against the Joint Chiefs to bring the US military into the 21st Century?  I don't believe Presidents deserve all the credit and blame they take for the economy.  The economy started to decline after 9/11.  Of course Bush takes no responsibility for that, he only reacted to events.  He reacted wrongly, but he reacted.

What is your definition of a "true empire"?  My definition is a nation that invades and occupies other nations to exploit the resources of the invaded country for its own benefit.  This would cover the Akkadians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, different European countries at different times, the Soviet Union and the United States.  Please identify the factors that determine false empire.  The causes of collapse of the Soviet Union are complex.  I agree that one cause is the massive resources committed to defense spending instead of what Adam Smith calls productive elements of the economy.

Thanks for the definition of what you are not.  I have no intention of smearing you with anything.  It seems to me you brought up the Bush bashing.  At this point I feel sorry for him.  I am not bashing America or anyone.  I believe America can do  better job of living up to its ideals.  America is strong enough to take any criticism I can offer.  You seem sensitive to someone questioning you opinions.  I don't need someone to think I'm clever for validation of my beliefs.

I respect a true believer.  Doesn't the collapse of Soviet Union indicate the threat posed to the American Way of Life was perhaps a bit overstated?

China is one of our major trading partners.  We are shipping dollars over there by the ton.  They buy US bonds with them.  China's economy is managed, but so is ours, FTC, FCC, SEC, Federal Reserve.  China learned from the experience of the USSR.   I agree with you that the Cold War was justified as a competition of ideologies.  My understanding is both sides used the anti-other rhetoric, except during World War II, of course.  I question whether the rhetoric of both idealogies didn't understate the actual threat.  Chinese and Cuban communism still exist, Capitalism reigns supreme.-

There may be no doubt in your mind that Saddam was allowing military training not under his control in his country, but there is no evidence that it happened either.  Saddam is a Sunni Muslim, Al Queda is a Shiite organization.  Read The "Shia Revival" for a clear understanding of what this difference means in the Middle East. 

What makes you think a successful democracy in the Middle East will lead to anything but the election of anti-American parties.  The current group in power in Bagdad has connections to the Shiite paramilitary orgainzations in Sadr City.  They need to for self defense. Why do your think the terrorists supporters won't run a fairly elected government?  Look at the last Palistinian election.   Hizballah won.  If elections were fair in Lebanon, what makes you think they wouldn't win there too?  If fair democratic elections were held in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE do you think "Support Uncle Sam" would be a winning slogun?  It is unlikely that the principle of democracy is compatible with American interests in the region.  In my opinion, our best bet is to reduce American interests by investing as a nation in alternatives to petroleum based products.  This solution has been discussed since the oil crisis in the 70's.  Why is there such opposition to such an obvious solution?  Where does it come from?

Where can I fnd your report on the Iraqi economy?  It is hard for me to imagine that a country experiencing such violence is enjoying an economic boom.  Even if it is, does that really justify the violence and loss of innocent life?