[Brian Swartz]

the motherfuckin iraq war wasn't about motherfucking terrorism. Saddam was as much an enemy of muslim fundamentalists like bin ladin as we are. Either you are overlooking this for the sake of making your point, or you are TBH (and there's not really a way to sugarcoat this so I apologize in advance - it's just one of those things that really push my buttons) ignorant.

I'm overlooking nothing, and I'm not ignorant, so you're 0-for-2 there. It's a lot more complicated than simply asking whether Islamic terrorism and Saddam Hussein were allies. He was funding Palestinian suicide bombers against an American ally(Israel, war by proxy). He was flaunting the UN inspections regime. Iraq was a source of instability in the region of the world where Islamic terrorism flourishes. It's not difficult to imagine how the impact of allowing a regime like that to continue to exist promotes terrorism, and how removing it can diminish it.

I think it's pretty clear that it's a failure of philosophy as well. The neocon idea that it is correct to use pre-emptive military action unilaterally has been shown to do little but create more enemies and distribute terrorist sympathizers to more and more locales.

I wouldn't say that's the least bit clear. Moreover, I would say that the fact that most civilized nations of the world today stand openly against the idea that states who sponsor terrorism should be confronted by whatever means necessary indicates that unilateral action will often be the only reasonable course of action. The other alternatives are to (1) Deny that we have been in a state of war against Islamic terrorism for quite some time now(decades), or (2) Pre-emptively adopt a policy of surrender in that war on any front in which the world community is not willing to act.

I disagree. When you send John Bolton to the United Nations that's exactly what you think.

Ridiculous. Bolton was plenty qualified for the job and had experience dealing with the UN. Who do you think should have been sent instead?

My point is that there's a difference between the U.S. acting as a dumb bully and as a benevolent older brother. We've been the former for the past 8 years

An appropriate stance lies in between those two extremes. Being a 'benevolent older brother' does not have enough teeth. Willingness to act unilaterally if necessary is essential to any nation's defense, not just ours. The characterization of the last 8 years is not entirely accurate either.