Justin Schwartz <jkschw@hotmail.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> If we lacked the ability to demolish small countries and had to rely on international cooperation for protection, like Luxembourg, the world would be a better place.   </BLOCKQUOTE> On what basis do you make that claim?  Even facing harsh sanctions, Iraq continues a nuclear programme.  There is no way Pakistan or India will give up their nuclear weapons.  That point only makes sense if no one can or is allowed to fill the power vacuum.  Sadly, I think history provides plenty of evidence that someone will seek world domination (or at least as to the expanse of the world as it was thought of at the time).  Right now it is U.S. hegemony reaching out over the globe.  One can certainly object to the need to blow up the world ten times over.  But I think it ignores human histroy and sadly human inclinations (I am avoiding human nature) to believe that there will remain a stable world politic of power. That said, the question then becomes do we let American military might service ends other than those striclty defined as U.S. interests, e.g., the humanitarian plight of Palestinians. Moreover, to the extent that genocide remains a human practice, it will require a substantial amount of international firepower to end such atrocities when the offending nation is itself modestly powerful. I do not see how isolationism or an internationalism is necessarily more stable or more humane.  I could see the whole thing breaking down into petty politics and regional preferences just as easily as seeing a benign force operating throughout the globe. eric <hr size=1>Do You Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/welcome/*http://health.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Health</a> - your guide to health and wellness