Axis Backlash

I would certainly agree that taking an active role in a conflict even if its a non-violent approach is certainly not cowardly. I think these (Jeff's) comments are directed at others in this thread, but in case I've not been clear I've never meant to imply that. Although I will say that Ghandi favored non-violence because he felt it was the only effective method for his particular struggle (he felt armed struggle in South Africa and India would only get his people slaughtered). He did not ever say it was the only solution to any conflict.

There must be room for debate if we're to avoid extremes. Usually the truths we find are somewhere in the middle of these extremes. However, I would also say that I would never support a Vietnam style peace movement that embraced the soldiers we were fighting while spitting on our own soldiers. I think you've seen a reflection of that when the peace movement during the Gulf War very specifically said 'we support our soldiers, we are against the war.' Unfortunately I think you get the radicalization of the peace movement when they don't get their intended changes, and that is just as bad as right wingers moving to the right of their original conservative positions.

 

This is a reach. Historians themselves have taken up the issue and you be doing a lot of guessing to get to this conclusion. The US entry into the war had a lot to do with the eventual downfall of the Third Reich and the ability of Russia to hold out in the face of the German onslaught.

 

Jeff,

What you said holds a lot of truth. But I don't think it's true in all cases. It is everyone's right in America to speak out, whether it be in agreement or dissention. And many men have died for trying to keep peace. But they died in a world of war. MLK was a fighter, but in a different sense. We are all fighters in some sense.

As I said, men by nature have long been thought of as evil. I don't know that we all are, but evil does reside in every man.

I don't think it's enough for America to put her foot down and say "enough is enough." When that happens, people like Saddam will be able to seize more power, more weapons, and more time. When we put our foot down, it'll open the door for people like him to come in and take us over, or even worse, kill us all. The whole world has to agree that the fighting is pointless. As long as people like Saddam are in charge though, that's not going to happen.

I know that two rights don't make a wrong and that just because Saddam is evil does not mean we have to destroy him and his country. But I believe that in the long run, America is doing this in the name of peace.

As far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes, I had a whole set of views and opinions about it just two days ago. But I'm taking a History of the Modern Middle East class and we began talking about it yesterday. Already I understand the whole situation a little better and hold different ideas about it than I did before. And I'm sure with more discussion, they'll continue to be molded and by the end of the semester, they could be completely different. I can't throw around blame for the situation because everyone can be blamed at a different point in the conflict. They need to quit fighting and share the land. There's no easy way to do that and make both sides happy yet. This conflict didn't begin until Britian promised all this land to people (seems that Britian put everyone in a lot of wars ). Until this, that area was relatively peaceful. The whole middle east was until the early 1900's. They had that understanding with each other. The middle east was one big happy family for the most part. It's European imperialism that screwed everything up. America was and is not an imperialist country as most of Europe was (although we are to some extent). We had the policy in the middle east of self-determination. The British agreed and then took control of it. So our policy of leaving them alone then didn't work.

I think you have an idea that if America quits getting involved militarily, the whole world will be a better place (I'm not trying to be condiscending, but this is how I perceive what you said so please correct me if need be). I think you're giving humans too much credit. Everyone has to agree and trust each other for peace to work and that's hard to do with 6 billion people.

 

Hayes: It wasn't really directed at anyone in particular. There just seems to be an assertion that you either fight or cower in a corner and that bugs me.

I agree that circumstances are different from time to time and no one is perfect. I would not embrace the cause of any soldier, quite frankly, but I also don't blame the soldier for doing what he/she is asked. I think you make a choice and that is the way you live and I'm fine with that.

Justice and morality, when it comes to war, can't really be placed on the heads of soldiers. Most of them didn't join to kill people. Some just wanted a good education or a decent career. I don't think anyone WANTS to take up arms. What is just and moral must be determined by those who control those soldiers and that army. That is why it is important, IMO, to change our thinking as a society. As long as we view conflict as a necessary and unavoidable consequence of living in this world, we are destined for conflict.

I realize that utopia is an ideal I may never see. We may wipe ourselves off this planet before we get a chance at an idellic society. However, I'm not ready to give up on an opportunity for peace and I find it discouraging and frustrating when others devalue the opinion of those who, like myself, simply see things differently and dismiss the opinion as that of some wacko idealist.

 

Princess & Treeman: I understand everything you are saying, but I think you are missing the point. I think that there are peaceful idealists who are just as willing to die for their beliefs and ideals as those who actually fight and die for it.

There are some who believe that the ONLY way to end war is to stop fighting even if that means dying in the process. I don't doubt that humans would try to dominate. I don't doubt that there are people out there who would love to kill us.

But, the cause of peace is a just one. Fighting back, despite every instinct we may have, isn't always a sensible solution. In India, they chose not to fight and the incredible pressure put on the British government to stop the fighting they waged against those there caused them to pull out. Just like the 60's in the south or the '68 democratic convention where the world was watching, the violence ended because people would not stand for it. You think it was a coincidence that the Vietnam War was the first televised war and the most protested?

Peace is hard. I wish I could be peaceful all the time but there are times I want to beat the crap out of John Stockton or throw a referee through a plate glass window. The point is that it is worth believing in and worth the effort and the cost.

 

Reagan did nothing?

Well for one he broke the ice with Gorbachev and started friendly ties with them that led to a reduction in arms and some stability. This broke the ice of the Cold War.

http://infomanage.com/nonproliferation/primer/nat.html

Do you still think Reagan did nothing? He helped diffuse the Cold War with Gorbachev. The collapse of the UUSR was due to several policies implemented by Gorbachev "Perstroika" and "Glasnost" that opened up the USSR to Western society.

There are several views on the Soviet collapse-

1. Russia's arms race with the US crippled their economy and the back breaking event was the US SDI "Star Wars" initiative.

2. Gorbachev's "glastnost" policy opened up Russia to "democratization" and the people did not want communism anymore. With "free" elections in 1989 and 1990 they unseated communism and elected Boris Yeltsin which led to the collapse of the USSR.

3. Reagan through his worldwide connections helped force the Soviet collapse. I found a good article on this view.

The way I see it is if Russia wouldn't have gotten into an arms race with the United States then they would still be a Communist country. I think Reagan was a MAJOR factor in bringing down the Soviets. I also think he was a great president (top 5) who led us through some very dangerous times. (And you can thank your lucky stars for that Grizzled.)

Happy 91st Ronnie.

 

If the US did not enter the European war in 1944 the Germans would have eventually beaten Russia. At that point in 1944 the Germans were spread thin across Europe. They were already on two fronts, fighting with the US opened up the western and southern fronts (Africa) and further spread them to the point that Russia was able to mount an offensive on the Eastern front.

If the US does not join the war. Japan would own China and probably would have pushed up from the South into the USSR and help Germany defeat them. Plus the Germans would have been able to use the African based troops to invade England or reinforce the Eastern front. The US entry into WWII definitely saved the USSR from defeat.

 

Like I said, I hear where you are coming from, I just don't agree that you or right or that it is necessarily common sense. I think you are viewing the problem in a way that suggests that, if we don't fight Sadaam or whatever brutal dictatorship is out there, we will simply be overwhelmed by them, killed off and replaced (or dominated oppressively). I just don't see it that way. We'll just have to end it there because I doubt either of us can get any further on the topic.

 

Warily, JAG approaches the brink of the chasm before him, pauses to sniff the air and test the ground, finds both wanting, and plunges in anyway...

1) Opponents of U.S. are "evil and irrational" argument...

Besides stating that they simply are, and it is ignorant to not acknowledge this point, how do you arrive at this conclusion? Call them fanatics and terrorists if you will, but how do you apply that standard to entire nations? A fanatic defines the world through one belief, and applies his/her standard universally, based only on his judgement of accordance with that belief, or on the word of his belief's leader...Treeman, don't you think that your avowed view of entire nations based on one view, and a biased one at that, might just qualify as 'fanatical'?

Also, any time we judge entire nations according to our standard, find them wanting, and react aggressively, we are becoming tyrants. If and when nations attack us, it is our right and obligation to defend ourselves. However, when individuals within a nation attack us, or might be connected to people that attacked us, or might represent future threats,and we assail the entire nation to 'defend' ourselves, we are no different from any other aggressive, expansionist imperial power...It is interesting to note that virtually every single tyranical expansionist power , from the Romans to the Turks, to the Nazis and U.S.S.R. has excercised their power over lesser powers under the pretense of self-preservation, citing attacks from individuals within their less powerful neighbours as cause. Is the United States,self-proclaimed proponent of freedom to follow suit?

Because the U.S. will always have enemies. Any nation, powerful or otherwise always will. We cannot exist in a vacuum, and short of that, there will always be people who disagree with us, and within those groups of people there will always be those extreme enough to act violently...and they must be dealt with. But if we act against the entire nations which they inhabit, we will not only be in a perpetual state of war, but will be simultaneously creating more and more enemies. Eventually we will be like the boy and the dyke...( Insert own joke at will, but please don't tell me about it.) Every state at war in history has identified it's opponent as inherently 'evil' , and such diatribe should smack of rhetoric to an educated populace...

2) The Threat Of Weapons of Mass Distruction argument...

Okay, I agree, I'm scared as hell at the thought of the likes of Saddam Hussein having the capability to blow me and mine to smithereens at the push of a button, but...

Don't you find it a tad hypocritical that we have set ourselves up as the arbiters of nuclear rights and justice, deciding in our arrogance who can and who cannot have access to these weapons, especially when you consider that, in the history of mankind ( ok, at least the Nuclear Age) the United States is the only nation to use weapons of mass destruction against it's enemies. Apologists will, I have no doubt, respond with something like 'oh,well, that was the past'..or 'we were at war'..etc. Well, the past is what people judge you on..Why do we see Saddam as a threat, if not his past? And if the court of world opinion were to examine the U.S. in the area of WMD, the fact that we used them, and no other nation which could have has might explain why many neutral nations during the Cold War thought it a lot more likely that the U.S. would start a nuclear conflict than the 'evil, fanatical' U.S.S.R....And, in terms of war, how does that excuse anything? It sure doesn't excuse Sept. 11th, despite the fact that those responsible have considered themselves at war with the U.S for years, and have repeatedly declared this...

3) The "benevolent America " argument...

To a minimal degree, this is true, but this argument is very flawed, and frighteningly myopic, ignoring as it does such relevant facts as...

A) The U.S has never existed as the unchallenged world power. The threat of the U.S.S.R., and nuclear response to any attempt at world domination, was as real a fact and determinent as the reverse. I am not saying that, short of the Soviet threat, the U.S would have trampled through the world unchecked, but you can hardly argue that the U.S.S.R.'s presence did not make that scenario much less likely...The term 'standoff', as it applies to the Cold War carries with it the quality of inability to act aggressively...all actions during this period, Viet Nam, Korea, Afghanistan were limited by these constraints, and the results hardly reflected the 'overwhelming' power of the superpowers involved. These constraints still exist, in the forms of Russia, China etc. and, while they do not exclusively disallow U.S. aggression, they are certainly a factor.And it might be noted that in the 10-15 years since the fall of the wall, we have significantly increased our military actions than we did in the 10-15 years preceding it...

B) The U.S. strength has relied on it's technological and economic development, and these are dependant on it's system of government. As such, it is responsive, to a degree, to it's populace, whose interests include sustaining itself and
it's values which, as is evident by the division of opinion here, not a simple task. Some believe, as do I , and haven, for example, that mass aggression under the guise of defense, do not represent those values. Not to excuse the treatement of the soldiers involved, but the popular reversal of the support during Viet Nam are an example of this...Putting aside moral and ethical obligations for a second, this makes military action harder to enact in this system from a pragmatic sense, and often requires nation-wide rationalisation to overcome these objections once the powers that be decide that military action is desired. Some times, as with the ill-fated and erroneous 'Domino Principle' which involved us in Viet Nam are genuinely believed by some of these powers that be, although even then there were other powers, like Bell, whose interest were merely mercenary or expansionist. However, genuine belief does not excuse erroneous action, or it would excuse such things as the Holocaust, whose proponents mostly believed in the merits of their actions...We do not forgive others' errors by reason of 'mistake or 'hindsight is 20-20' as readily as we do our own. I want to clarify, I am not calling the holocaust a 'mistake', I am suggesting that were we to apply the same rationalization to others' actions as we do our own, we could excuse almost anything, such as using nuclear bombs on civilians, or mass genocide...And many individuals of power in the U.S have, in the past, yearned for such military aggression, from Patton to Dulles, only to be restrained by the system...

C) Being the most powerful nation is not as simple as being the strongest guy on the block, as history readily shows...Louis XIV and Napoleon each held a higher degree of advantage in their spheres of interest, militarily and economically than does the U.S. now, and yet they fell when it was perceived that the other nations only course of self-interest lay in united opposition. Additionally, such actions are a lot more complex now, and a nation built on trade and a world with many capable of Mass Destruction do not afford the U.S. the realistic ability to try and overpower all who oppose it through use of arms. It is simply not conceivable, and startlingly sophomoric to suggest it.

I am sure that there are other arguments which I have forgotten to address, and I will attempt to do so later, but I am tired, and I doubt many of you have even excercised enough patience to read even what I have writen so far, as I can too easily fall in love with the merits of my own arguments...

 

Arguable, but limited. The same could be said, and with more evidence, of the involvment of the U.S.S.R. and Britain, especially the latter. It can be argued that the U.S.S.R. acted only in it's self-defense,but that is a limited view of the situation, ignoring the fact that Stalin desperately sought alliance with the Britain, France, and the U.S. before Munich, only to be rebuffed and rejected, whereupon he took the only measure of self-preservation open to him. As for the British, many times before Sea Lion the Nazis offered peace to the British, as indeed Hitler saw them as not only necessary for a balanced economic Europe, but admired them as well. They could easily have decided , both before and after France was overrun, that their interests no longer lay in conflict; the 'none of our affair' argument that kept the U.S out of the war for years...yet they did not, and at significantly greater cost and peril than did the U.S...additionally, the U.S did not enter the war at such a time as would co-incide with 'saving their asses', as you put it, but only after they were attacked, just like the U.S.S.R....

 

JAG:

Just want you to know that I support you in this, but that I'm sick of arguing about it. Sorry to not help you out more concretely.

Carry on the good fight, brother!

 

Wow, I just previewed this post and JAG is kicking ass, from my brief skimmage... anyway, on with the show.

Firstly: glynch, fight the power! Takes a lot of courage to be a conscientious objector. And Jeff, I'm not sure enough of anything to be a complete pacifist, but I admire your stance *and* agree with your theory that pacifism can be courageous.

Princess, I'd like to let you in on a little secret. The things you say earlier on in the thread *stay* in the thread! So everyone can read them and look at them for a long long time! Nifty, huh? Sometimes, when you say something which contradicts something you said earlier, it's possible for someone to *refer back* to that initial post and point out something called 'inconsistency'. Here's an example. First, you said:

If I recall correctly, we saved their asses in World War II after they tried to "deal peacefully" with Hitler.

*Then*, after I pointed out that there was some rather bloody fighting for years after the failed appeasement policy, you said:

I NEVER said the other countries were not fighting until we came in, as you so cleverly asserted that I did.

If you want to avoid my 'clever assertions', Princess, write more clearly. For all I know you actually *meant* to talk about the courage of the Allies in fighting Germany during the initial years of the war. But you didn't. So what else am I supposed to take from your first statement?

(gag me)

Must... resist... making... joke...

treeman:

Wassa matter, you can dish it, but can't take it? You hurl personal insults at me for no reason at all, and then I jokingly throw them back... Gee what an ******* I must be to insult a poor wittle wady...

Wow, you can't even read. I told you to hit me with your best shot - insults don't worry me at all.

I've actually read plenty of your posts over several months, which is why I know having a substantive argument with you is pointless. You tend to go off on odd tangents, make strange assertions which don't really prove your points (that thing about the infant formula and HIV, for example, doesn't prove that the USA was 'right' and far-thinking about AIDS prevention - it just means that the USA didn't want to commit to the programme) and I've yet to see you concede on, well, *anything*. Why keep banging my head against a brick wall? It's much more fun to call you Cletus.

HayesStreet is also monumentally wrong , but he's probably worth responding to more seriously.

While we do act in our national interest, as does every other nation, we have not sought to conquer and occupy the rest of the known world ala England/Spain/Rome/Greece.

I said this earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating: you're able to conquer by trade rather than might, which is your backup plan - the elephant in the room. And woe betide anyone who gets in the way of that trade. You aren't a political empire in the old-fashioned sense of the word - you're an economic one. A quintessentially modern, capitalist empire, happy to compromise its ostensibly democratic ideals when it 'needs' to. And yes, it is worldwide. No country escapes your reach. So you do some good or great things. And you do some bad things too.

But I don't buy this 'we're benevolent because everyone else was worse' theory of yours. Two wrongs, etcetera.

If we don't act (rwanda/bosnia) then we are terrible because we have a moral obligation to use our power for the betterment of all humanity. If we DO act (bosnia/afghanistan) then we are imperialist dogs/crazy testosterone filled cowboys looking for a shoot 'em up.

You know, I'll give you that. You do have a Catch-22 position on occasion - a function of your position in the world. I'm going home permanently in June and I'll probably spend most of my life *defending* aspects of US policy or culture to other New Zealanders, so it's hardly as if I don't see your side here.

My main point - my only point, really - is that ignoring the rest of us while you blunder into the Middle East to fulfill a dubious military objective only engenders more resentment - not just among your enemies (you know, those crazy mofos willing to kill themselves and you in the process), but among your allies (who, despite treeman's contemptuous dismissal, are perfectly capable of making decisions and acting upon them). The USA's near-legendary insularity is *not* a good thing. Step outside yourselves for a moment. Deep, cleansing breaths. You know, all that crap.

 

Hey Jag,

I didnt say anything about us "saving their asses" that was someone else... check your facts. I think you are arguing with Princess.

All I am saying is that if the US does not enter WWII Europe would be mostly Germany and Asia would be mostly Japan. The conflict would not have ended in 1945, it would have been drug out much longer and Britian probably would have survived. Russia would have either been conquered or greatly shrunk.

The US chose sides before they were attacked at Pearl Harbor. They were already supporting the British/Allies with the lend lease act. Our financial support prior to our formal entrance into WWII was a big boost to England.

I don't quite follow your argument about Russia, of course they didn't enter the war until they were attacked. Britian and Russia were only allies out of convienence. Britian entered the war to support Poland - not Russia. They signed a non-agression pact with Germany. Once they were attacked they were forced into the war. If you are trying to say that England and Russia had greater losses than the US - then you are correct. They fought on their own soil.

I am off to enjoy the weekend, what did this argument start about anyways?

 

Well believe it or not I appreciate that (I think) . I was afraid I was getting lumped in...

So if we expand our influence through economic rather than military means, in your opinion, that is as bad as if we conquered by force? Is there ANY action the US could take that you would not consider tyrannical (as opposed to benevolent)? If we send economic aid you'll say we're economically imperialist, if we aid militarily you'll say we old school imperialist. It seems the only way we could be perceived benevolent in your view would be to go isolationist, with neither trade nor military components outside our borders.

And I'm not saying the US makes the right decision everytime or that I would defend every action. I am saying that on balance we've had a great effect on the world as we know it. I believe that in comparison to powers with similar characteristics we are more benevolent that any other in history.

As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. No offense, but NZ is not exactly an actor on the world stage. So who are you talking about? Europe? It is fact that the Europeans had a major conflict in their own backyard that they could not or would not act on. Despite the haunting specter of ethnic cleansing and mass genocide in Bosnia, NO ONE in Europe did ANYTHING. And this went on for almost a decade! In the end it was a US push that resulted in action in the crisis. So pardon us if we are a bit skeptical of European resolve. The simple fact is that the larger the coalition the more chance that diverging interests prevent any action. Its certainly true in the UN. Its certainly true in NATO. Where have all these allies been while the US has been trying to help in the Middle East? It was Carter that brought Egypt and Israel together. It was the US that brought about the peace talks (although they admittedly haven't gone well). The reason you have people in the US claiming the choice is unilateral or no action is that its what we perceive from past experience. We're not just making it up. The only thing we hear from our 'allies' is 'let's not act in haste.'

A quick (and I believe relevant) example. On this board we've all been in conversations where you think 'man, I am just beating my head against the wall.' Do you continue to do that ad naseum or do you eventually say 'forget it, we'll agree to disagree, and I'll do what I think is the correct thing to do?'

 

Hayes...

Just to address one further point, especially because it is an area of personal interest...Re: the relative expansions of the U.S. versus Greece/Rome/Spain/England...

1) Greece...I'm assuming you mean Macedonia, as Greece as we know it never existed until recently, and the Hellenes never formed any type of nation. In so far as Macedonia, yes, they were expansionist, and it was done with the Persian threat, as advocated by Aristotle and picked up by Phillip and later Alexander, as it's impetus, together with the belief that the Macedonians had a moral imperitive to export their superior culture and system of government...sound familiar? It is also interesting to note that, while Hellenistic culture flourished and expanded, it's principles and unification lasted barely longer than Alexander's life, and additionally Alexander's name has become synonomous with 'Devil' in many of the nations he 'enlightened' to this day. Democracy, in the form of the Greek city States, opposed the Macedonian expansion until Cheronea, and even afterwards they were often rebelling or protesting the imperialist dreams of the Macedonian monarchy.

2) Rome...How do you know? Rome existed for roughly 500 years before any significant expansion, while the U.S has more than doubled in geographic size since it's inception just over 200 years ago. What is more, as already pointed out, all of Rome's conquests, from Spain, Africa, Sicily and Sardinia during the Punic Wars, to Italy during the Social War, Macedonia, Gaul, etc..were done under the guise of eliminating an aggressive enemy, or avenging an atrocity, like the Parthians and Crassus, or Mithriadites and Asia...Again, sound familiar? Evaluating the U.S. and Rome is like comparing Vince Carter and Michael Jordan...taking the acts accumulated over hundreds and hundreds of years, and comparing them with an empire still in it's infancy, relatively speaking.

3) Spain... Sapin's primary reasons ofr expansion were to acquire natural resources, predominantly precious metals, and to spread it's doctrine; Christianity...As far as the formr, you are comparing apples and oranges...The world is no longer economically dependant upon the Gold Standard, since Bretton Woods, but is based on much more ethereal and complex economic factors as market shares, oil, industrial development, technological advancement, etc...and the U.S does indeed expand aggressively in these areas..and when requird, as in Kuwait or Panama, backs them up with military might just as effectively and selfishly as any Conquistador...Also, as with Rome, etc...give the U.S time before comparing them...Native Americans, Texicans,Canadians, etc. might not agree with your assertion that U.S history is entirely devoid of similar aggression...

4) See Spain, as far as interests, and Rome, as far as duration and relative conquest...

While I disagree with your arguments, Hayes, I appreciate ANY opportunity to talk historical imperialism, an area of personal study and interest...

 

Like when we reacted in Bosnia? Not sure the victims of the Serbs felt we were being tyrannical. If you judged a nation by their own standards you'd never find justification for action, would you? Do you suppose we shouldn't have intervened in Bosnia? Or that we shouldn't have intervened in Rwanda (although we didn't I believe we should have). Soveriegnty is important. It is the basis for our current nation-state system. But it is not inherently unassailable. When the Vietnamese invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia and stopped his horrific genocide, was that tyrannical? When the Army went into Jonestown to pull the people out (admittedly too late), were we being tyrannical since they were there of their own free will? Absent Germany's aggression, would it have been tyrannical to intervene as they slaughtered their whole jewish population? Or only if they invaded Poland first? If so I'm afraid I'll take that badge and wear it with a smile.

It would be interesting for you to give an example of a dominant power that you don't consider expansionist and tyrannical. Has such a society ever existed? Whether real or imagined, you are correct that action is often taken under the pretext (instead of pretense) of self preservation. What is the point? That would be the case whether it was true or not. How do you differentiate? The fact that some actions are taken under this 'pretense' doesn't prove ANY such action is based on pretense.

You act as if these are not ever state actions, but always a small cadre that merely resides within their borders. Is the government responsible or not? You put a lot of feeling into respecting the sovereignty of these particular countries, but place none of the responsibility on those same doorsteps. Interesting.

And the alternative is what? No one is advocating wiping out whole nations.

Undoubtably it is hypocritical to keep technology we have from those that don't, as many have argued in the debates over the NPT. Unfortunately where does that leave us? Are we to allow the proliferation of nuclear technology to any 'nation' that claims sovereignty? Do you advocate a world where the Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the Taliban, Serbia, and Libya's of the world have nukes? Do you realize the implications of such a policy? I hardly think you're a big Kenneth Waltz fan???

I agree with you to a point. However, what argument COULD you make that the US would have militarily rolledover the rest of the world absent the USSR? I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with such a scenario. Especially since absent the USSR being an 'enemy' we'd have been friendly with the rest of the world, and someone would have written 'The End of History' before Fukayama was born .

That's pretty much a misleading comparison. Most of that action was a result of the disintegrating bi-polar system, not some gung-ho imperialistic impluse in the US. And in most if not all of those actions there was significant external support for US involvement (Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan)...

And why did they perceive a common interest? Because both Louis and Napolean were trying to take over the world! We could take on Iraq, Iran, N Korea, Somalia, Syria, and others and the Europe is not going to be afraid we're going to land at Normandy again. These examples are so dissimilar as to prove my point of US benevolence by comparison.

Hmmm, not even Treeman is saying a military response is right for every situation. Having said that your argument is justification to KEEP WMD from regimes that do not currently have that capability, since resolution of disputes is that much more likely to spiral out of control once the acquire it. Just as its sophomoric to suggest that EVERY situation can be resolved militarily (which no one has proposed), its sophomoric to exclude unilateral military action from our range of options.