USA takes over the world
 

After reading and posting here in OD for a short time, I am beginning to wonder how many of the contributors believe that military force is the diplomatic tool that the US should be using in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. And if it is such a good idea there, then where else? Should we not, as the biggest badasses on the planet, just go out and kick everyone's ass that we don't agree with? Venezuela anyone? Korea again for sure. China? We'll teach those ba5tards to put melemine in babyfood. Why stop with the Afghans, lets get Pakistan while we're there too, then just sweep back through Iran, pincerlike with our forces in Iraq. Really, the entire middle east should be ours, we have the ability.
Then we can set up governments just like ours.

Oh dear God no! Imagine, 365 days a year of election campaigning!

We need to START minding our OWN business and quit meddling in everybody else's.

Lol, I'd like to see anyone actually take over China. Military or not, I'd say it's impossible.

Yes, England controlled India, as well as much of the world, but I think things were a lot different back then.

Very well said, I like the way you've made your point. I do think that some may read it differently!

International Law for making war is pretty clear, if you are attacked or can prove another nation intends to attack you, or if your citizens are murdered on their lands for the crime of being a citizen, you get to kick ass, otherwise, it is a war crime. Iraq fails this test, Afghanistan does not. North Korea is really, really pushing it, I'd give them a red star for effort.

Iran qualifies as a nation intent on attacking Israel - they have broken international law by threatening them with annhilation, if the Israelis attack them first, fine by me, and we may get drawn into.

VZ is a democratically elected government, we have no right to attack them, and so far the only thing they have attacked us with is Chavez's big mouth.

China and America live in more of a state of peace than they ever have in decades, if you grew up in the '60s like I did, when we were in fact battling China de facto in Vietnam and before that for real in Korea, you'd know what I mean. Both nations know there is little to be gained using war, the war with them will be for economic control of the planet, and it is being waged now down at your local Walmart.

Last night, a US Marshall, unfortunately a crooked one, was assasinated in Mexico by the drug cartels, they are pushing it too, in fact if the US Marshall had been killed in the course of his duties, I'd be screaming for war. In other words, it is and will remain a case-by-case thing.

In the words of Marvin Gaye, "Only love can conquer hate." It may sound juvenile and simplistic, but if you really think about it, it is a very true statement. I'm not as educated as I'd like to be about world history, but it seems to me that military success is insufficient to declare victory. World War I led to World War II because there was insufficient effort at bringing Germany back into the world community as a successful state. Contrast this with the rebuilding efforts we contributed to in Europe and Japan after WWII.

Afghanistan... if the Taliban and Al Qaeda weren't defeated militarily, they were certainly tremendously weakened. Yet we failed to help build a successful Afghan society after and the bad guys are now resurgent.

We can't beat the hatred out of our adversaries with violence. War by itself can never be the "answer."

You should read "Fiasco", the book that most people don't realize changed the course of the Iraq War. The hero of the book was General Petraeus, who was unknown to the general public at that time and was showing success in the corner of Iraq he was responsible for while the rest of the country was going down in flames in 04-05. He made exactly the points you make in your post, and putting him in charge reversed what was about to be our defeat. It is one of the reasons I have high hopes for Afghanistan.

One of the more interesting facts about Petraeus is that he was in charge of the Army study after Vietnam that examined what went wrong and why we lost. He was also the author of the US Army Counter-insurgency Manual, something his boss Rumsfeld failed to read and something that pretty much predicated we would fail in Iraq using Rumsfeld's policies.

Ah, but the Geneva Convention is a rag that we ignore. International Law does not apply to US because we are RIGHT. Laws are for other countries. We need to inflict our ideas on ALL opposing governments, regardless of the losses.
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!!

I will get a copy of Fiasco, sounds like a good read

That changed on Jan 20, 2009.

All we are saying, is give peace a chance!

Right On Brother!!

(exchanges of hugs and peace signs)

I would perfer we simply observe international law when making war, peace has never been foremost in my mind. There are people we should be killing, and people we should not be killing, and those choices should be driven by a strict and well-understood morality, lest we descend into Hitlerism, such as we did with our Poland-1938-style invasion of Iraq. It really isn't that hard to understand. I am sure that gladness now fills your heart that we now have a president capable of making those moral choices.

I'm just glad we don't have a commander and chief with ties to Big Oil.

'Fiasco' is a real interesting read. I highly recommend it.

War is, by the way, considered the last phase of diploymacy.