That is true, though I felt that Iraq was a very complicated situation. Saddam Hussein didn't have a clean record. He tried to annex Kuwait and committed genocide against the Kurds. There wasn't a 'good' solution to how to deal with Saddam. The biggest mistake, in my opinion, was what the US did after the invasion. They threw him out of power and then went, "Okay, now what...?" There wasn't a clear plan and Bush's "Plant the seeds of democracy and it will spread throughout the Middle East" statement was extremely misguided. The invasion might be well-intentioned, but that is not enough to justify it.

Feel free to talk about controversial subjects like this, but keep the insults and digs out of it.

Thanks.

I think this kind of problem, which has persisted in humanity for all of recorded history for human civilizations, will persist unceasingly until we are wiped out, or achieve transhumanism via ASIs.

I hope that we replace governments with an ASI as soon as reasonably possible in fact.

It doesnt seem that way. these extermist muslims are going to the same mosques and hearing from the same leaders. As long as they are willing to harbor these extremist nothing will change. Muslims themselves must identify, and remove extremeist from their own ranks, and they dont seem to be doing that in western society or in the middle east.

Yet this democracy is what we continue to attempt to give...though, look at the outcomes. Remember the vietnam war and our attempt to give democracy? Didn't end so well, did it?

Also, doing less would mean that we could potentially be in a better situation. Islamic groups may have not had the chance to rise and take any sort of power. Sure, Sadam Hussein isn't exactly a saint, but at least Iraq would have been kept in control.3

Don't get me wrong, I hold the position that the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq, though it wouldn't been an easy decision knowing Sadam's track record. In regards to the Vietnam War, I hold similar views as those on the Iraq War. The intentions were well-meaning, but how the US went about it was a total other story and that was its ultimate downfall, in my opinion.

What were their intentions? Prevent a country from getting communism?

It'd be good if they were being attacked by the Soviet Union/China, but when they want communism(instead of a horrible dictator who only supports the top %1), then it's not considered good to interfere and stir chaos.

They'd been in power for about a year, since a KGB-backed coup d'etat.  So sure, they were invited in, by the guy who had just stolen the house at their behest. 

No, wait:  it's even worse than that. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
"In response to Afghan government requests, the Soviet government under leader Leonid Brezhnev first sent covert troops to advise and support the Afghan government, but on December 24, 1979, began the first deployment of the 40th Army.^[31] Arriving in the capital Kabul, they staged a coup,^[32] killing the Afghan President, and installing a rival Afghan socialist (Babrak Karmal).^[30]

Of course, the previous government had also come to power by coup d'etat only a few years earlier, and five minutes of Google didn't show that that one was particularly due to outside meddling.  However, he certainly became chummy with the USSR pretty quickly, and they egged him on to fight with Pakistan, with generally bad results.  The US didn't intervene from what I spotted on Wikipedia until the USSR overthrew that government for not being friendly enough (the first time, not the second time) and radical communist rebels apparently killed the US ambassador.  (Some allege that instead elements of the USSR-backed government were involved, though even if this is true it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole government was involved or that the USSR knew or approved.  One senior US official called it "a tragic event which involved either Soviet ineptitude or collusion.") 

Really, the whole country got gradually destroyed by the Cold War, from both sides, but I think it's fair to say that the USSR "started it". 

Afghanistan wasn't a stable country. Tha fact that the USA only intervened when the USSR got its foot in is quite telling. Brezhnev's military was overstretched and he made a mistake pouring so many resources into the country. But that doesn't make the Socialist takeover of the country any less legitimate.

Reformation eh? Google conflict after the Reformation and take a good look at what the reformation did for tolerance and peace in Christianity! I'd pass, thanks all the same.