But the point is that there is (almost) always a middle ground. Reality is binary only if you carefully phrase the question. In most cases saying A or the opposite of A must be true is incorrect, instead you must say that A or everything that is not A must be true.

Saying that we are not going to dominate the world is not the same as saying we are going to surrender it to somebody else. In fact, the odds are that trying to dominate the planet will simply accelerate the speed at which some other country dominates the planet. Dominating the planet is expensive and creates even more enemies then we already have. Eventually we will run out of money and odds are one or more of our enemies will get ahead of us.

Or to put it another way, if you want to claim that history teaches that one country will dominate the planet then you also have to accept that history teaches that dominating the planet will eventually destroy that country. From Rome to Briton, history shows that the effort involved in holding on to that domination was one of the key factors in their eventual failure.

A carefull policy of slective intervention when necissary and effective, but avoiding getting into too many fights and a willingness to abandon fights that can not be won. Combine that with a policy of working with allies to share the burden, both at the UN and by alliance. Done correctly we could balance the need to take care of the worlds problems with the need to avoid getting into fights we don't need to. That is the middle ground that would let us continue to progress without draining our resources.

Jay

Domination is as domination does. I can see you enjoy semantic games, but I'm more of a practical sort. So I'm calling it what is. A benign world government, securing peace, dignity and freedom for the individual of all the world, headquartered in Washington, DC.

I would agree Marlow, if I thought there was any chance of the above actually happening.

But history shows quite well that world dominating countries don't do it to spread the common good. That can be a side effect in some cases, but certainly not all. Look at the US's own history in South America, overthrowing democratically elected governments because the elected government wasn't pro-US or threatened US buisnesses. If the US is to dominate the world, we will do the same thing again.

Jay

Shame. Look at US history in Germany, Japan, Panama...
France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Korea, Israel and yes, even the Philippines. (I'm sure I left some out, but you get the idea.) Then contrast to the sort of regimes you would prefer we leave alone. Like Saddam's for instance. Is there a neigboring people he didn't invade and either slaughter or try to slaughter?

What? When did we invade France, Italy, Belgium, Holland or Israel? I imagine you are taking about the aftermath of WWII here. There is a huge difference between WWII and the sort of war of domination you are supporting, we where dragged into WWII against our wills.

Or maybe you'll shame yourself further by using the old "but we did it for selfish motives" canard. If the US had been out for itself, there were far more obvious ways to go about it. Like occupying and looting all these countries instead of giving them democracy and a Marshall Plan. Beneficient is as beneficient does. The United States is the most selfless hegemon there has ever been, as even the most cursory comparative review will show, and the most detailed will verify.

Neither country had much worth looting left. And both where needed to serve a much more important role, allies against Russia. The issue of why the reconstruction went so much better in those countries then what we are facing now is a whole different argument.

Oh, and then look at the Chile case a bit more closely, and tell me if you've been fair even there. That regime was as democratic as Hitler's. He came into power by democratic means too, ya know.

What did you have in mind? I have never seen anything against Allende that stood up to scrutiny.

And in any case, even you have to admit that Pinochet was far worse. Pinochet probably can't be 100% blaimed on the US, as the US probably didn't pick him. But the US had been encouraging the military to stage a coup for some time, and was more then willing to work with him afterwards.

Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame. You try to defend the worst scoundrels of the world by carping on the smallest errors of their betters. Is there an honest bone in your body?

You have to get the idea that I am defending people like Saddam out of your head. Your trying to polarize the sitatuion, either I support invasion or I support Saddam. The reality is that I support neither. Remeber Marlow, it's among the people you are supporting that you will find the people that helped Saddam.

Jay