Is Obama a Socialist?

[Lion]

Arrogance? I see you try to address this lower, we'll look at that. Mistakes? Not sure this is addressed so we'll hold off till later.
Well there is an intent, but it is not clear just what you consider a mistake, arrogance, or for what we need to apologize.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll try to review what I said earlier so that you don't feel the need to be so defensive.

Plain comment! is that supposed to be "arrogance" or a "mistake".

Removing a democratically elected leader of a country because that person decided to side with his population over foreign interests, over issues that resided within the country's border is wrong. In my humble opinion, that would constitute a terrible mistake. America right now says their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is to better the lives of the population living there. Awesome! And I get the Afghanistan war, I really do, and to some extent, so do people from the East. But the Iraq invasion? North Korea seems like a country that could benefit a lot more. Somalia doesn't even have a government, why not invade that country and establish order? Why Iraq? For WMDs?

So yes, mistake. They should not have interfered with the politics of a sovereign nation, I doubt you'd appreciate if China schemed a way to covertly tried to topple your government.

Is it not better to be consistent than to bounce from side to side? Since a UN established country was physically attacked the day after it creation, in spite of massive concessions to those that attacked, you think it is what "arrogance" or "mistake"?

I'm curious with these concessions you speak of, giving that the area of Israel has increased dramatically since the creation of the country, or even 1967. Maybe in another thread so we don't derail this thread even further

Actually I would say that more properly you need to say not "formal" apology. "In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice.[6] As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims." Seems to me that there is an admission and apology inherent in such an action.

To the families of the victims, there is a huge difference. Money, and an actual apology are vastly different. This is not something I can convince you of, it's a matter of how you perceive life. In American courts, lawsuits are settled out of courts for monetary sums, but with no admission of guilt. Even in America, there is a legal difference.

The aid was to assist in prosecution of a war. We did not fight in it so why are we bound to rebuild the country. Again is this "arrogance" or a "mistake"

Prosecution of war?? The aid was to fund training and arms. This is in my opinion, a mistake. And you're correct, American soldiers did not fight in this war. Ethically though, America's actions showed that Afghanistan was an ally during that war. As an ally, the Americans really dropped the ball there. If you think that there was no obligation, you're right. But it was a low blow to the fighters who thought the Americans had their back. And defend it however you want, they resent you for it.

People are going to remember first the things that support their preconceived notion of the issue in question. Perhaps that applies to you as well.

guilt
   /gɪlt/
–noun
1.the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; culpability:
2.a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc.,
3.conduct involving the commission of such crimes, wrongs, etc.:

Number one requires a determination of having committed such an act. Number two can not be assigned from without, nor determined to exist by an external entity. Number three also requires that a crime has occurred. None of these are supported by your statements.

If you think that toppling a foreign government was not wrong, then US is not guilty.

If you think that providing Chemical arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was not wrong, then US is not guilty.

If you think that marching into Iraq with claims of WMDs, even though this was proven to be false is not wrong, then US is not guilty.

France had pecuniary motives for opposition. Can't remember Germany's opposition.
Let's have a look at that "false assumption" comment? First what are the assumptions? Second how were they false? Much of the world was clear that Iran was a threat.

False assumption - Weapons of Mass Destruction, where were they?

I assume you meant to type Iraq, and with no WMDs, what threat was there? If much of the world thought Iraq was a threat, why did India, China and Russia object to the war? India and China alone constitute about a third of the world's population. Much of Western Europe held the same opinion. I don't remember the armies of Brazil and Argentina part of the Coalition of the Willing. The only major country taking part in the war was UK. This was a huge difference then when there was a proper form of aggression in 1990, and the world firmly stood against Iraq.

Obama's foreign policy consists of; "We should not have done that.", "We are sorry", and "How can I express a subservient attitude?"

With the civilian Iranian plane, an apology like "I am sorry" can go a long way. "We are sorry" are not words of weakness. And I don't remember Obama ever saying or hinting at asking another country about how US can be subservient to them.