Hitler was psychotic. Let's not get into discussing the morality of psychotic individuals.
I'm surprised to hear Haf say that the invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing to do. I thought he was a peacenik. Not that I am saying it was the wrong thing to do, mind you. I think that's a complicated subject, and one for a different thread.
I am kind of a peacenik, but there are limits. When people crash planes into your skyscrapers full of civilians, you are correct to view it as a declaration of war - and a war crime to boot - and go out and hunt them down.
I hold to the mainstream Canadian opinion, which is that the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do and should have been better-funded, while the war in Iraq was a disastrous sideshow that should have been avoided completely.
The main reason that Americans are upset about the Russian military strikes is that it wounds our national pride. Ever a study in contradictions, we dislike foreign entanglements but at the same time want to feel like the biggest badass on the globe. You can't have it both ways.
You'd be correct if the American public was upset about it. I don't think they are.
Obama however is upset about it because Russia is acting like Turkey, trying to use IS as a cover to advance its own agenda. He's already got enough problems dealing with one Turkey, he doesn't need two.
Our (by which I mean the US' response; no offense meant to my non-American readers) response to the Russian presence in Syria depends on what is our final goal. If "stability" is the goal, then we should be glad the Russians are there propping up Assad. After all, aside from the occasional gassing of civilian populations, Syria has been relatively stable for years, at least compared to its current state. If the goal is the destruction of ISIS, then once again the Russian presence could be seen as a boon; by targeting the regime's other enemies it frees up Syrian resources to focus on ISIS. But if the goal is the removal of Assad and the installation of a more Western-friendly government, well...
If the Russians really do prop up Assad, then I'll be surprised. That would mean a deployment of the Russian Army and probably treating Syria as a giant version of Chechnya. I can't even begin to guess what the death toll on Russian troops would be.
Plus the terrorists would start to really target Russians. As opposed to the current situation, which is that the FSB targets Russians when it needs to invent a terrorist threat to justify some war Putin has planned.
No, I think they want to keep Syria unstable. They don't want to lose Assad but at the same time keeping the Middle East unstable is in their best interests.
This is the game of international geopolitics. Russia now has a foothold in the Middle East, which the United States has treated as its private playground for decades. If Assad survives and the Russians stay in Syria, say with permanent military bases like the US has in the region, the old Cold War enemies will be facing off once again. To quote Wings Hauser from Red Dawn, "Two toughest kids on the block — sooner or later they're gonna fight."
Russia's had a foothold in the middle east for a long time, it's called Iran. Other than that, your analysis is generally correct. But I doubt the Russians will really move into Syria.