Obama Lying About Iran WMD

and other sundry things.  

"Out of curiosity, can you provide me with a citation for where Obama claimed Iran had nukes from *after* the CIA released a report saying they didn't?"

November 2007 was the new national intelligence estimate.  You can download the report here: 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5370436

The report is also discussed here: 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

Here is a July, 2008 article where Obama talks about how the world must stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/23/barackobama.israelandthepalestinians1

Here is a July 25, 2008 article where Obama talks about how Iran has to give up its "nuclear weapons program": 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/obama-to-meet-with-sarkoz_n_114918.html

Here is an August, 2008 article where Obama talks about how Iran has to abandon its "nuclear ambitions": 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/08/28/obama_could_open_early_iran_nuclear_talks_adviser/

Obama is laying the groundwork for the same type of WMD-related scare that paved the way for the Iraq War.  He is, essentially, lying just like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, using similar terms--the same terms that, in fact, Bush and the Republicans are now using to lie about Iran.  He knows what he is doing--fearmongering--and he knows how well it works on Americans.  

Onto more katherine points: 

"Would it be wrong, for instance, to kill German soldiers who were forcefully drafted into the Nazi army in order to end the Holocaust?"  

As you write the question, no.  I am not advocating pacifism, i.e., an unwillingness/inability to engage in self defense.  Nor am I arguing against what would be, by a noble country, humane acts of freeing people from tyranny.  

"a) We are not currently engaged in a war in Pakistan."

Our special forces are currently killing people there: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

Obama has said he wants to "expand" operations there.  That means even more death, and when you exchange fighter planes for Green Berets, the collateral damage goes up.  

"b) *Your* solution to Iraq and Afghanistan is to 'expand' out military there. Why do you assume Obama is going to 'expand' the war in the wrong way?"

(Referring to my The Only Right Thing To Do In Iraq)

That solution refers to educated soldiers, among other things.  For example: 

First, we must increase the number of American troops in Iraq tenfold (or morefold) while we simultaneously increase our investment in military humanitarian training, MP oversight of troops, and public oversight of (an all new set of) contractors. There need to be so many U.S. troops that you can't go outside without bumping into ten. And they all need to be smiling, well-paid, living in sanitary barracks, off stimulant drugs, getting 8 hours of sleep a day, and handing out free candy bars, Qur'ans, Bibles, stuffed animals, food and water, and whatever else on demand.

(We can contract K, B & R to build said troop facilities for the price of $1, or just continue criminally indicting top executives until the remaining ones agree to do the work for $0.50. And in case you're wondering, they have to give back the money they overbilled, too. The $0.50 charge is punitive, not restitutionary.)

This is not what Obama is advocating.  What Obama is advocating is throwing a few dozen thousand more soldiers in there to continue with the same game plan as before.  He called Bush's surge a "wild success," which shows what he thinks success is: car bombings, murders, etc.  

If all you took away from my "right thing to do" was "more troops," you did not read it closely enough.  

"a) I was perhaps unclear about what I meant about 'solving all the problems in the middle east'. I meant 'solving the problems in the middle east that have a high likelihood of impacting our economy or safety', such as theocratic regimes gaining nuclear weapons or invading large numbers of other states or even, say, attempting to perform 'ethnic cleansing' on large sections of their population. These are problems that our foreign policy should be involved with."

And when have we been involved with those problems?  Secondly, if we have been, when has there been a successful outcome?  

As to the economic consequences of my Iraq plan, I didn't say it was feasible, or nice.  I said it is the least we can do to begin attempting to make up to the Iraqis for what we did to them.  We should be disgusted with, and ashamed of, ourselves, and no amount of our sacrifices will be able to earn the Iraqis' forgiveness.  When discussing the right thing to do in such an awful, murderous situation, how much it costs our government is not even a factor that gets to be included in the situation.  If you don't understand why we don't get to be so arrogant as to whine about our taxes, I can link you to some shots of children burned to death in Fallujah.  

Re: drafting people to raise the necessary troop levels.  I did not say we would draft.  I said we would raise pay and security until people wanted to join.  That would require taxes.  Which the aristocracy has more than enough money to pay.  I think the Rockefeller family could get by with only three BMWs per person--four is probably a sacrifice they can afford to make.  

I know that solution isn't going to happen, as I said within it; it was a thought experiment to imagine, "If we were decent, and we realized what we had done to those poor people, this is what we would do to try to begin to make up for it."  But of course, if we were that decent, we would not have done it to begin with.  Thought exercise.  

As I said in my last post, though, if we limit our imagination to what we think other people will accept without trouble, we won't ever be able to go very far with ourselves.  We will remain in the Blood Ages for all time, with no new renaissance to save us.