Heb1228 said:
That comment seems to willfully ignore historical context. The US military could have utterly annihilated any of those countries without ever resorting to nuclear weapons. They, however, chose to try and avoid civilian casualties instead of completely annihilating an enemy, as many of the other historical superpowers would have done to their enemies.
In any war designed to bring an opposing nation and its government to the point of surrender, the US is absolutely unequaled in the world today and they are far from incompetent.
the usa could have won in vietnam and made them the 51st state, and they could have annexed somalia in the 1990s and iraq a couple of years ago and made them a part of the united states if the will was there
but let's say the will was there, and the united states, who were the most instrumental nation in beating hitler and tojo, was willing to take over vietnam, somalia, and iraq, did so, then what would the moral outcome be?
i have no doubt that the united states could take over a dozen times those three countries but in the 21st century, is that how things are done?
we are not the empires of portugal, spain, france, and the united kingdom and we should not try, in this day and age, to do so even though we could if we wanted to
the united states could blow up the world many times over...should it?
and if there is a god, like i believe, he would not allow the usa to be a modern day rome (but why god allowed alexander the great and rome to exist and won't, in my opinion, allow the usa to do the same is a mystery to me
i believe we are in the last days, as mentioned in revealation, and maybe it's my personal bias that the usa will not end up being the world power run by the anti-christ bent on world domination
...but george w. bush seems to fit the bill better than any world leader i have ever seen in my life
