bobbo, make Reality your friend. It only hurts the first few times. Something masochistic there, unwrapping one's self from the comfortable illusions of Dogma says:

War does secure and maintain an Empire though.

Good to look at once a month:

Anyone know how they calculated the “relative power?” That is expressly what the x axis represents, but no telling of how it was judged. Somehow though, it strikes me as accurate–or meaningless, depending on my mood.

http://slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/08/12/the_1931_histomap_the_entire_history_of_the_world_distilled_into_a_single.html

deowll says:

All of the Reagan operations were very short deployments of American forces and succeeded in achieving there objectives.

The last two Presidents have vastly extended the scope and frequency of military interventions with rather questionable outcomes. I will note that in many cases they had the express legal authority to do what they did. After 911 Congress went into a complete funk and it shows little or no evidence of recovering from it.

I will also note that Adam Curry picked up on a speech made in the EU by H. Clinton when she was Secretory of State to a bunch of bright young techies that suggests to me that much of the Arab Spring and the subsequent complete destabilization of the middle east was the end product of US government programs intended to bring western style progressive governments into power in North Africa and the Middle East. If so this has to be one of the biggest disasters in international political real politic ever.

MikeN says:

“Where the stakes are the highest, in the war on terror, we cannot possibly succeed without extraordinary international cooperation. Effective international police actions require the highest degree of intelligence sharing, planning and collaborative enforcement.” (2004)

“You know, if the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, do we have the coalition to make it work, and, you know, those are considerations that we have to take into account.” (2013)

“I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” (2008)

“It’s time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right.” (2008)

“That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.” (2002)

“I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.” (2002)

“When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.” (2004)

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else’s civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.” (2007).

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” In response to a question “In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? … The notion that as a consequence of that [2002 Congressional] authorization, the president can continue down a failed path without any constraints from Congress whatsoever is wrong and is not warranted by our Constitution.” (2007)

jpfitz says:

War or shots over the bow are great for the military industrial complex. Yeah, I know you all have heard that phrase over and over.

But, I have a disgusting example for you. While I was working at a machinery dealer as an application engineer in the early 90’s as George H. W. bombed Baghdad. I came to work the following day and the owner of the business literally jumped for joy knowing or hoping more destruction would bring in more sales of all types of machinery. That’s when I saw how spilling blood was good for business.

MikeN says:

Obama’s Red Line
http://tinyurl.com/ldpfbv4