You're kidding right? And, of course, you cite absolutely nothing since you know I'll have to do extra work to show that you are incorrect.
The only way I interpret the UN resolutions is the way in which they were intended by the UN. I don't know where you're going with that. Let's see if I can dissect your rambling post.
Re your first set of numbered items:
1) By using the atomic bomb, we actually spared many lives on both sides. It broke the will of the people and hostilities immediately ceased. Keep in mind that it was a completely different political climate then. Also, note that we didn't use it to inflict the most casualties, the targets were strategic in that they were manufacturing centers for the Japanese military. Imagine what would have happened had we gone after Tokyo.
BTW, why do you think wars constantly drag on anymore? Because we must tread lightly instead of doing what likely needs to be done. The fact that you view the US in a negative light because we used atomic bombs to end a bloody war is exactly the self-loathing I'm talking about. And it's also a textbook case of revisionist history.
Also, don't forget that Germany and Iraq have both used WMD.
2) I believe that you named them in your edit, so I will deal with that when I get there.
3) We went to Yugoslavia to honor our commitment to NATO.
(Oh look, a citation!)
BTW, if Congress didn't declare war, how then is it that you can say we went to war against Yugoslavia?
4) How many times do I have to say that the Gulf War ended in a cease-fire, not a surrender? As such, it never really ended. Honestly, we should have finished the job in 1991.
The UN didn't have to authorize action, Resolution 686 kept Resolution 678 in full-force, which allowed member states "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area". http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm
No resolution was ever passed rescinding that stipulation. Hussein didn't abide by the rules set forth in the terms of the cease-fire and we called him on it.
5) More self-loathing. I suppose that they (and you) are entitled to your opinion, but I don't see it that way. Having religious zealots who believe that paradise is the push of a button away I think is a bigger threat.
In my opinion, you're letting self-loathing and the media bring you down. Do I agree with everything Bush has done? Not at all. Do I think he's as awful as I hear almost perpetually through the media? Not at all. If I took as gospel everything I hear on the evening news, I might share a similar outlook as you do - they just feed your self-loathing. I take them with a grain of salt. I will make up my own mind as to how the economy (or anything else) is doing. How many times have I heard this slowdown referred to a recession? Probably a few hundred. However, it's not a recession when there is still growth, albeit slow.
The show that is Obama is all sizzle and no steak. Sure I can hope for change and change for hope or whatever. But be careful for what you wish. He's a Marxist, which we most certainly don't need and which is completely contrary to the values our country was founded upon and upon which it has thrived. Moreover, he strikes me as being disingenuous - the type of guy who'll smile to your face and tell you what you want to hear and then stab you in the back the moment you turn around. Caveat voter.
Not sure where you came up with the assertion that I cut-and-paste from propaganda sites. You must have me confused with someone else. Off the top of my head, I've cited the Washington Post, BBC, Federation of American Scientists, The Guardian. I could see you being justified if I were citing various 527 groups or partisan political thinktanks, but that's simply not the case.
For what it's worth, I have traveled a bit myself, most recently to London, and I actually felt good to be an American. I never saw any reason when comparing notes that would make me feel as miserable as you seem. After all, why is it that if life is so good in these other places so many are champing at the bit to live here? I just don't see the downward spiral you're talking about. Sounds like more of that self-loathing.
On to your second set of numbered items:
1) Already addressed that we were fulfilling our NATO obligation.
2) Iraq invaded Kuwait and failed to abide by the terms of the cease-fire and subsequent UN resolutions and we finally called Hussein on it.
3) Somalia was a UN peace-keeping and humanitarian mission (yep, the US is THAT bad). Last I checked, we didn't attack a sovereign government. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4013143.stm
4) Take a look at this and tell me we invaded Vietnam: http://servercc.oakton.edu/~wittman/chronol.htm
We supported the South Vietnamese after the Geneva Peace Accords, in part, because the French left a power vacuum and to counterbalance Sino-Soviet intentions.
No other Western country is put in the same position we are today, so there are none. However, I would argue that if you look at Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, you will see that in their history they have attacked other countries and not at the behest of an international body. Any time the proverbial $hit hits the fan, all those countries look to us to do something about it; with the exception of Vietnam, all the 'attacks' you list are because those Western countries looked to us. And we are in the unenviable position of being damned if we do and damned if we don't.