In what kind of deranged world are we living that people are fighting against the notion that waging war on another country should be a costly decision!?

My, the Overton window has indeed shifted far.

What genuine threat did Venezuela or Iran pose to Americans? Corporate interests don't count.

As for delivery, Iran does have missiles capable of launching a nuclear weapon at American assets in the Middle East, or American allies. Or even to just float it over on a ship.

There's reports Iran agreed to limit themselves to only medical grade centrifuges as recently as last week.

And no, Iran does not have weapons capability to reach the US, period.

They fundamentally did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. A threat to American strategic goals is not an imminent threat to the American people.

Is your claim that the deal was not preventing Iran from developing a nuke? Then why does the existence of the agreement matter either way?

Are you saying Iran would magically produce a nuke the very day the deal expired? Then why don't they have one today?

How does ending the agreement make it harder for Iran to get a nuke? How does "tearing it up" prevent anything that the agreement itself wasn't preventing?

You can't condemn one and condone the other on that basis.

That is very boring, caveman logic.

There exists a culture for which it is an honour to kill Jews. Pretending that this culture does not exist is racism. Disregarding the differences in values of other cultures is the most disgusting form of racism - pretending that one's own culture is dominant or universal.

You seem quite concerned with the plight of the Palestinians so I'll use that as an example: Jewish people experienced the worst, most widescale crime against humans ever committed, and then a few decades later, a subset of Jewish people turned around and began doing the same (at a smaller, less industrialized scale). This demonstrates the perfect universality and programmability of a human, which includes "human culture."

Any human culture can be molded to justify any existent human action. To pretend otherwise is to engage in ethnocentrism - what you accused me off, the presumption that there's something special about your culture that prevents atrocities happening under it.

The second that makes your argument racist rather than logical (if you refuse to budge on the word "racist," swap in "prejudice" - the fallacies are the same either way) is the homogeneous angle you're applying. This should be an obviously fallacious statement: "Christianity is a violent culture that supports violence against Jewish people, discrimination against gay people, and school shootings." Why is it fallacious, though? I know lots of christians that have done all of the above, proudly tying it back to their religion. You see my point, right? You would, presumably, never walk into a room of white people and assume they all share identical values - do it in America, half probably are tearing their hair out in frustration at the values of the other half. Yet you do it to Islam / Arabs / Muslims, because, frankly, you are racist against Muslim people.

An argument that depends on making a blanket statement about a group of people fails for many reasons: categorization (how do you accurately and scientifically select who falls into this grouping and who doesn't?), resolution (how do you account for outliers within this grouping, and how do you determine who might be an outlier?), absolutism (how do you account for the fact that people change?), and due to above, how could you justify making any decisions based on a prejudiced framing?

Racist arguments are completely dependant on fallacy. With a rigid application of rational reasoning, they fall apart. They're illogical.

Your philosophy would see the whole world at war.