The World's Policeman

[Selene]

FYI:

The signed armistice established a “complete cessation of all hostilities in Korea by all armed force”^[2] that was to be enforced by the commanders of both sides. Essentially a complete cease-fire was put into force. The armistice is however only a cease-fire between military forces, rather than an agreement between governments.^[20]No peace treaty was signed which means that the Korean War has not officially ended.

The armistice also established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The DMZ was decided to be a 2.5-mile (4.0 km)-wide fortified buffer zone between the two Korean nations.^[21] The Demilitarized Zone follows the Kansas Line where the two sides actually confronted each other at the time of the signed armistice. The DMZ is currently the most heavily defended national border in the world.

and...another Wiki comment...

In 2013 North Korea argued that the armistice was meant to be a transitional measure. North Korea had made a number of proposals for replacing it with a peace treaty, but the U.S. had not responded in a serious way. It further argued that the Military Armistice Commission and Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission had long been effectively dismantled, paralysing the supervisory functions of the armistice. North Korea believes that the annual U.S. and South Korean exercises Key Resolve and Foal Eagle are provocative and threaten North Korea with nuclear weapons.^[41]JoongAng Ilbo reported that U.S. vessels equipped with nuclear weapons were participating in the exercise,^[42] and The Pentagon publicly announced that B-52 bombers flown over South Korea were reaffirming the U.S. "nuclear umbrella" for South Korea.^[43]

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

I'm done with you.

We'll miss you.

In Post #94 I wrote, "No one on this thread has asserted that there is no difference between the governments of the the U.S. and North Korea."

In Post #95 you wrote of that sentence, "Your first statement is bullshit."

Now all you have to do to prove that you are right is quote someone here who made such an assertion. That should be an easy matter if, as you say, it is obvious.

You can call me a liar. You can call me self-serving. You can call me cowardly. But name-calling is not going to make a statement that was never uttered magically appear.

It is bullshit because it is an evasion. Everything you've posted reeks of contempt for the United States, the people in it and the people that serve in law enforcement and the military. What is your opinion about N. Korea? What is your solution? If it's do nothing... My posts 91, 93, and 95 remain unanswered by you.

Oh, back again so soon?

Is your thinking so simplistic as to be unable to recognize that values in the average adult person exist on a hierarchy? If Smith dislikes broccoli, does that mean that he regards it as equivalent to poison?

You have made your own contempt for the current regime in Washington quite clear. It is reverting, you say, "to the dark ages." Thus, with the same indifference to the rules of logic that you've demonstrated, I could assert that you think the government in Washington is no better than the one in Pyongyang.

Post #91: If the U.S. had a libertarian foreign policy, no American citizen would forced to contribute to it. (See your own Post #8.) Fact: the U.S. armed forces abroad are financed with billions in stolen incomes. Ergo, no libertarian foreign policy.

Post #93: "The inability or unwillingness to see the difference between even the worst decade of US history and Kim Jong Un makes Kim Jong Un possible." You have made that claim. All I have to do is point out that you've submitted not one fact to back it up.

Post #95: We are still waiting for you to undertake the mental toil that would be required to find a single quotation to support the claim that anyone on this thread has equated the U.S. and North Korean governments.

As to what should be done about N. Korea: there are no quick fixes, especially not one involving military force. See Gaede's Post #97.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a quote by Ronald Reagan that has made me check a premise or two (from here--the June 6, 1984 speech in France at the U.S. Ranger Monument at Pointe du Hoc on the 40th anniversary of D-Day):

There is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest.

I get conflicting feelings and thoughts about this statement, but I'm glad I came across it.

One part of me is saying it is true and critical and the other is saying it is subterfuge for increased power.

What's worse, both parts are equally and passionately convinced. (Believe me, you don't want to know what goes on inside me. )

This issue is more complicated than a simple principle, yet seems like it should be governed by one. I believe that's why good people fall out with each other so easily over it.

I'm not apologizing for my position, either. In my book, instead of pissing off one side or the other, why not piss off everyone?

Michael

[Selene]

Here is a quote by Ronald Reagan that has made me check a premise or two (from here--the June 6, 1984 speech in France at the U.S. Ranger Monument at Pointe du Hoc on the 40th anniversary of D-Day):

There is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest.

One part of me is saying it is true and critical and the other is saying it is subterfuge for increased power.

I try not to see it as an either - or situation.

I think in most cases there are elements of both at work.

Furthermore, I believe that each soldier and citizen knows in their soul/mind which side they are on.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Here is a quote by Ronald Reagan that has made me check a premise or two (from here--the June 6, 1984 speech in France at the U.S. Ranger Monument at Pointe du Hoc on the 40th anniversary of D-Day):

There is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest.

I get conflicting feelings and thoughts about this statement, but I'm glad I came across it.

One part of me is saying it is true and critical and the other is saying it is subterfuge for increased power.

What's worse, both parts are equally and passionately convinced. (Believe me, you don't want to know what goes on inside me. )

This issue is more complicated than a simple principle, yet seems like it should be governed by one. I believe that's why good people fall out with each other so easily over it.

I'm not apologizing for my position, either. In my book, instead of pissing off one side or the other, why not piss off everyone?

Michael

Liberation from what? Whose liberation? Whose cost? Who is asking to be liberated? In what sense a "war"? Freedom? His statement is only to think about. That he was actually President puts it all into a different ball field.

--Brant

think, think, think--even if Ronald never really did

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

think, think, think--even if Ronald never really did

end quote

That is highly unfair. When I hear an old recording of President Reagan I feel inspired, Brant. He could write, approve of what other clear thinkers had written for him, and orate as no one had up until his time. Did he respect the Constitution and American and human rights? Was he any better than his predecessors and successors? Hell yes. He was the best.

I won’t dive into political minutia. He treaded too far into Statism for my libertarian leanings so I will simply make my case by quoting the man himself from an old OL letter. How could the mind that thought these things be anything but good? So take five, and re-look at the following. Five minutes, Brant. As Ronaldo Magnamus said, “Heroes may not be braver than anyone else. They're just braver five minutes longer.”

All of the following quotes are from President Ronald Reagan.

“Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem.”

“One way to make sure crime doesn't pay would be to let the government run it.”

“Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.”

“I know in my heart that man is good. That ‘what is right’ will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.”

“We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much”

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

“Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.”

“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”

“Today, if you invent a better mousetrap, the government comes along with a better mouse.”

“Man is not free unless government is limited.”

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction”

“They say hard work never hurt anybody, but I figure why take the chance

“Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.”

“We need you, we need your youth, your strength, and your idealism, to help us make right what is wrong.”

“Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You will have opportunities beyond anything we've ever known.”

“Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.”

“These young Americans sent a message to terrorists everywhere. . . . You can run but you can't hide.”

“Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.”

“When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

“To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last -- but eat you he will.”

“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”

“Life is one grand, sweet song, so start the music.”

I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp. (February 10, 1982)”

“There are no such things as limits to growth, because there are no limits to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder”

“There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.”

And I guess everyone remembers the one about tearing down that wall, Brant.

[Peter]

I just want to add, that the three Presidential candidates who most remind me of the great Ronald Reagan are Ted Cruz, (former candidate Ron Paul,) and his son, Rand Paul.

[Francisco Ferrer]

There is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest.

Marx and Engels said economic intervention would necessitate further, more radical intervention later. The same is true for military globalism. You might say that Reagan's arming one side in the Afghan civil war set off a chain of events that would lead to further, more radical interventionism later.

All in the name of "liberation," of course!

Reagan with the "liberating" Mujahideen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think in most cases there are elements of both at work.

Adam,

If I had to simplify it, I would not go with non-initiation of force in the way I see this used these days.

I would probably go with something like it's a moral good to take down a bully.

My inner conflict starts twitching, though, on who gets to define what bully means. Rehabilitation and forgiveness. How long a former bully needs to keep being punished. Etc.

On a common sense level, though, it's a given to me--a not-to-be-questioned axiom--that bullies are bad. Evil. If you take one out, I'm all for it.

For instance, I'm not for the USA invasion of Iraq, but I sure like the fact that we destroyed Saddam Hussein's killing/oppressing machine and pulled him out of a hole to face justice.

I feel no sense of guilt if I try to use the NIOF standard in thinking about this. On the contrary, I feel deep satisfaction. Only after that do I start thinking about the horse's asses that got us into that mess in the first place.

I guess I'm not too concerned about the rights of bullies. My attitude is let them defend their own goddam rights, although if push comes to shove, I suppose I would stand up for a bully if he was truly being violated. But, in that case, let's say my enthusiasm would leave a lot to be desired.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

Continued support for the World Police State requires us to remember this:

and not this:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

FF,

How about remembering both?

And loving the first while hating the second--in equal measure?

It's a pisser to do it that way, ain't it?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

There is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest.

Marx and Engels said economic intervention would necessitate further, more radical intervention later. The same is true for military globalism. You might say that Reagan's arming one side in the Afghan civil war set off a chain of events that would lead to further, more radical interventionism later.

All in the name of "liberation," of course!

Reagan with the "liberating" Mujahideen

I will bet good money that the cleaned off the sofays after that meeting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

FF,

How about remembering both?

Remembering both is a terrific idea if you wish the public to be well informed, but a terrible idea if you are promoting a World Police State and want widespread acquiescence in regime change, creative destruction, and mass murder.

That is why coverage of returning American bodies was forbidden.

That is why the practice of embedding journalists in war zones was begun.

That is why a compliant media repeated the first picture ad nauseum and reserved the second for Page 22 or the editing room floor.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

FF,

You change the world by changing yourself.

You cannot make the world do what you yourself refuse to do.

If you truly believe remembering both is a terrific idea, you will do it as well as say it. Somehow, based on your posts, I don't think you have much appetite for the doing part.

At least you say it (when pressed to), so that's something.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant wrote:

think, think, think--even if Ronald never really did

end quote

That is highly unfair. When I hear an old recording of President Reagan I feel inspired, Brant. He could write, approve of what other clear thinkers had written for him, and orate as no one had up until his time. Did he respect the Constitution and American and human rights? Was he any better than his predecessors and successors? Hell yes.

I agreed with "unfair" as opposed to "highly unfair." Jack Wheeler thinks he was the greatest President of the last century. While I agree, it's a low bar. I have a love affair being unfair to politicians. I don't want to give it up; I'd be soo lonely.

I really don't want to set my brain at work rehashing and regaining my Reagan-hood memories, let's just say Presidents suck for they have to suck for hoi polloi won't have it otherwise and Leviathan is too big to cut down so the political whores simply don't nor will they even try.

Yep, he could write his own stuff and do it very well and had ("evil empire") balls ("Mr Gorbachew, tear down this wall!"), and as a politician was a great actor. For the level of thinking he did I'm only impressed by the fact he did it at all.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

FF,

You change the world by changing yourself.

You cannot make the world do what you yourself refuse to do.

True. Many years ago I took a vow to honor the non-aggression principle and not treat mass murder as something heroic. So far I've kept my word.

If you truly believe remembering both is a terrific idea, you will do it as well as say it. Somehow, based on your posts, I don't think you have much appetite for the doing part.

At least you say it (when pressed to), so that's something.

Michael

The photo of Saddam is 11 years old, the photo of the dead child seven years old. I had no trouble remembering both photos from the day they were released. The fact that I posted both photos without prompting, without pressure, is proof that I have remembered the propagandized side of the war and the uglier, non-propagandized side.

In any case, nothing that I said or did before this day has any bearing on the point I made in Post #110.

To repeat: the media-embedded-in-government has done its best to make the collective memory of Iraq about punishing the bully Saddam. (All the pre-war Rice-Rumsfeld-Powell panic about WMD's has been filed away as if it never happened.) The human cost (i.e. the U.S. military as invader-occupier-bully) is not part of the approved, mainstream discussion.

Even still, the public which once overwhelmingly embraced the war is now fed up:

"72 percent of Americans thought going to war in Iraq was the right decision. By early 2013, support for that decision had declined to 41 percent."

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/08/344402/wars-will-americans-ever-learn/

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In any case, nothing that I said or did before this day has any bearing on the point I made in Post #110.

FF,

This is where we disagree.

I'm really big on context.

But hell, you want to blank out what came before that post? OK. Just look at what came after--i.e., this last one of yours. Same old same old.

Not both at all.

Like I said, lip service is one thing, doing is another.

You play to your technicalities and I'll play to my contexts. We disagree on much.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

In any case, nothing that I said or did before this day has any bearing on the point I made in Post #110.

FF,

This is where we disagree.

I'm really big on context.

If on Monday Smith says, falsely, that hydrogen is the second element on the periodic table, it would not make his claim on Tuesday that liquid nitrogen boils at 77 kelvin (−196 °C, −321 °F) false.

Nor would Smith's denial of a prior false statement or inability to remember making a false statement mean that now nitrogen boils at a temperature different from 77 kelvin.

But hell, you want to blank out what came before that post? OK. Just look at what came after--i.e., this last one of yours.

You said in Post #111 that we should remember both pictures in Post #110. I have done so. I continue to do so. Keep in mind that I am the person who, unbidden, posted both photos.

Nothing in Post #116 is a denial of Saddam's crimes or his capture by U.S. forces. Nor is anything I have written previously on this forum.

So what evidence do you wish to submit that I have blanked anything out? Or is context really not that important to you?

Same old same old.

If it is not true, refute it. If it is true and not relevant to the topic of this thread, explain why.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

FF,

I was going to go in a different direction and have some fun, but I notice you changed your text from the "prove it" hostility, and your changes convey a reasonable tone, so I'll give it a try.

You have a habit of injecting criticism of the USA--not just any criticism, but the anti-war anti-federal government kind of criticism typical of a certain kind of ancap--in the most contextless places. You constantly do it. I never see you inject praise of the USA in a similar manner. I get the feeling we could be talking about cupcake recipes and you would say something bad about USA foreign policy or similar.

This gives the general impression that you have an agenda and are acting like a true believer. (I sometimes call this preaching.) Whether you are or not is another issue. This habit in conveying your message carries the true believer subtext with it to the reader.

And that dilutes your persuasion factor all the way down to the level of watercooler gossip--and a spat at that. It makes your pronouncements work only for preaching to the choir since everyone else tunes out or, worse, enjoy the bickering qua bickering like in a soap opera.

I actually agree with a lot of your positions, but I refuse to be a part of this polarity process. It doesn't work and it irritates me. If you want to get a rise out of people, at least try to persuade them while you are at it. Just irritating folks is pointless.

My commitment to my own objectivity is much stronger than to any cause you are promoting (or anybody is promoting for that matter). The ONLY way to reach me (if that is interesting to you) is to avoid things that call on me to openly violate that. And when I say "reach me," I am sure this is the same for lots and lots of readers.

My proof? I run a forum where lots of big brains hang out because they want to. My way works.

The following is a guy who gets what I am talking about--and I disagree with him on just about everything else (especially his honesty and integrity, even as he preaches honesty and integrity).

Notice at the beginning of the talk, he said he started paying attention to the poor effect his pronouncements were having on his listeners and decided to do something about it. That's the first step. Identify the problem and accept the reality of it.

The path he chose as remedy is comedy and I agree that's not for everybody. But there are other effective paths to getting a message across.

Just because a habit--like constantly butting in with the same old same old--is comfortable because you have done it a lot, that doesn't mean it works at conveying anything about the message. It conveys a hell of a lot more about the messenger. Proof again? Look at the constant reactions you get.

Hellooooo...

If you are interested, I can point you to some good stuff about all this. If not, not.

So take that as you will. I offer it in good faith.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If it's his wont I'm sure FF could praise America's (true) Americans while damning the United States. That's what I do.

--Brant

as the world turns

(hat size 9.25 ~blush~)

[Francisco Ferrer]

FF,

You have a habit of injecting criticism of the USA--not just any criticism, but the anti-war anti-federal government kind of criticism typical of a certain kind of ancap--in the most contextless places. You constantly do it. I never see you inject praise of the USA in a similar manner. I get the feeling we could be talking about cupcake recipes and you would say something bad about USA foreign policy or similar.

First of all, I am always careful to separate "the U.S.A" from the U.S. government. They are not the same, much as the government would try to convince us otherwise. More to the point, I am not aware that I have injected criticism of the U.S. government inappropriately or in a "contextless place," as you call it.

In any case, the topic at hand is "The World's Policeman" and just how is pointing out the catastrophic results of U.S. foreign policy out of context on this issue?

This gives the general impression that you have an agenda and are acting like a true believer. (I sometimes call this preaching.) Whether you are or not is another issue. This habit in conveying your message carries the true believer subtext with it to the reader.

And that dilutes your persuasion factor all the way down to the level of watercooler gossip--and a spat at that. It makes your pronouncements work only for preaching to the choir since everyone else tunes out or, worse, enjoy the bickering qua bickering like in a soap opera.

True believers accept certain ideological positions without the necessary facts or arguments to support them. In order to establish that I am of this personality type, all you have to do is to show that any position I've taken has no basis in reality.

Go ahead.

I actually agree with a lot of your positions, but I refuse to be a part of this polarity process. It doesn't work and it irritates me. If you want to get a rise out of people, at least try to persuade them while you are at it. Just irritating folks is pointless.

My commitment to my own objectivity is much stronger than to any cause you are promoting (or anybody is promoting for that matter). The ONLY way to reach me (if that is interesting to you) is to avoid things that call on me to openly violate that. And when I say "reach me," I am sure this is the same for lots and lots of readers..

I'm sorry you feel irritated by my posts. I'll make an effort to use a soothing tone in the future. For example, I'll make it a point not to tell someone he sounds like a true believer as a substitute for addressing the content of his post.

My proof? I run a forum where lots of big brains hang out because they want to. My way works.

The following is a guy who gets what I am talking about--and I disagree with him on just about everything else (especially his honesty and integrity, even as he preaches honesty and integrity).

Notice at the beginning of the talk, he said he started paying attention to the poor effect his pronouncements were having on his listeners and decided to do something about it. That's the first step. Identify the problem and accept the reality of it.

The path he chose as remedy is comedy and I agree that's not for everybody. But there are other effective paths to getting a message across.

Just because a habit--like constantly butting in with the same old same old--is comfortable because you have done it a lot, that doesn't mean it works at conveying anything about the message. It conveys a hell of a lot more about the messenger. Proof again? Look at the constant reactions you get.

Helooooo...

If you are interested, I can point you to some good stuff about all this. If not, not.

So take that as you will. I offer it in good faith.

Michael

I'm not sure what you mean by "butting in." I've always assumed that the person in the thread above me was finished when I pressed the "Post" button. (Note: this is my poor attempt at the comedy you prescribed.)

And I'm not sure what the complaint about "same old same old" means. I've never posted the same words twice except as a quotation. If you mean that one is not supposed restate his position in different words or provide additional arguments, data, links, etc., it would appear that such a rule is widely violated on this forum.

Anyway, I appreciate the free advice and the video.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not sure what you mean by "butting in."

FF,

That's for sure.

Sorry I wasted your time and mine.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote to Francisco, “Sorry I wasted your time and mine.”

I watched the video about using humor to bypass prejudice and I suppose I attempted to do the same as Michael in the above quote, (with my recent “Al Gore” parody.) Though I had never really thought about my humorous style until 2001 when Barbara Branden chided me for “self deprecating humor” which she did not like at all. I had never thought of it as self deprecating or “humbling myself” and I still do not.

The video’s ideas generally resonated with me. I usually think of my humorous writing as poking fun and as being satiric. However, the cartoon, “What if we create a better world for nothing?” lists several supposedly wonderful things that are misleading which we would attain by fighting man-made, global warming: energy independence, preserve rainforests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water, air, healthy children, etc., etc.

I think that the list is misdirection because it does not seriously address the cost of doing all that. Fox TV and radio host Sean Hannitty is constantly on the defensive when Progressives claim conservatives and libertarians are for “dirty air and water and they want to hurt the children,” but of course they don’t. That claim is a rotten lie. It sidesteps the science. It sidesteps the taxation and government control involved in the Progressive’s agenda for global control. It sidesteps the Constitution and the Progressive’s “intended” loss of individual liberties.

Did you notice that the video only lampoons freedom lovers like Conservatives, Sarah Palin, and people who follow science and are against the religiosity of Global warming? Even its most controversial joke of calling Richard Pryor after his free-basing burning accident, “The Ignited Negro College Fund,” qualifies as a blast at drug use and is anti-libertarian. So, although the video is thought provoking it also shows the power of humor to propagandize. The authors slant is to demonize freedom lovers. Notice that I did not say Conservatives or Libertarians. I would call us, Freedom Lovers.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael wrote to Francisco, “Sorry I wasted your time and mine.”

Peter,

I should qualify that. I was talking to only one person in that statement.

I try not to waste the time of OL readers (including in that post) and I'm glad you got some value.

I agree with you that Bliss is a bad trip with his Progressive agenda. What's worse, some of the things he said are patently false (for instance, saying Tina Fey only used Sarah Palin's own words and not her own). But he claims truth and integrity are the source of the power to persuade in humor. Go figure.

He's almost right, though. It's the illusion of truth and integrity (pegged to a core storyline) that gives humor power to persuade. That's short term. Long term, actual truth does tend to win.

I agree with you that Bliss shows clearly how humor can be used propagandize--and this can be applied to a conservative agenda (or an ancap one -- oops, I can't help it, one day I'll learn to keep my trap shut ). This works far better than beating people over they head, snark, or trying win word games.

It's cool that you picked up on the propaganda thing as the reason I posted the video. The context and behavior of the person I posted it to was the big tell, but I wasn't sure anybody would catch that.

Michael

[Peter]

Francisco Ferrer wrote:

In short, does the need to "protect the rights and freedom of . . . potential customers in any country" justify a World Police force?

end quote

Look at the “big picture.” Armed insurrection, or criminal violence and activity seem to be in every corner of the globe. There has never been a pause throughout human history. There may be a totalitarian dictatorship suppressing “extraneous violence” but the regime is nearly as violent or worse than the rebels. The most lawless areas are in a constant battle for the supremacy of one group of men over another. Is that humanity’s eternal fate because of our DNA?

Recently shown video maps of “time lapsed” wars in the civilized, western world may seem to undercut our base thinking that countries that respect the rights of its citizens have less crime and insurrection, yet it is true. We have a brighter future. American may have “gangs” and a few violence prone “militias” but when polls are taken a majority of people in “western” societies experience more safety and satisfaction with their lives. We need to stop the West’s slide towards Statism.

Contrary to some isolationist reckoning I think America’s use of force since the 1900’s has been less and less initiating violence and more and more the retaliatory use of force. After we disengage from Afghanistan we will need to eliminate the immediate threats from rationally defined terrorist countries but I see no need to place our troops on foreign soil except to complete and verify the successful use of retaliatory force.

The spread of Western ideas via media like the world wide web of social media and news will have a profound affect on the countries on the edge of civilization like Russia and China. The only places that are exempt from civilizing influences might be North Korea (for now) or lawless hells like Somalia. Is advancement inevitable for our species? History paints a mixed mosaic but since the times of the first cities, humans have retained their collected knowledge. We will survive and advance.