Yes they are. I only said that the motivation always was national self interest not benevolence.
> We do. Because we can.
I think that exhausted my tolerance for further discussion with you.
I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Nobody has ever fought a war for 'benevolence'. It's a silly concept. If you know anything of history, you'd also know that WWII was not fought for 'benevolence'.
No I didn't. Read what I said again.
Might makes right to decide what is right. That is now and always will be the case.
I'm merely objecting to the notion that being the toughest kid on the block implies it's always right to use force. Might does not equal right. Sufficient might only equals military victory, nothing more.
Absolutely. I did not mean to imply that in any way. What I meant was that might gives you the power, and therefore responsibility, to make moral decisions about when and where to impose your will on others when they are acting 'sufficiently immorally', however you choose to define that.
Ever notice that people arguing for war are always anxious that the opportunity will slip away if we don't attack _them_ this instant?
Ever also notice that _them_ look pretty much like a lot of erstwhile allies that we aren't at loggerheads with?
That's all well and good, but I don't want to hear a lot of whining from your corner when the next 9/11 happens.
We do. Because we can. That is how the world works. If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction.
> Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest.
This is a pretty childish sentiment. Reasons for war are complex. The world is actually a complicated place, and admits multiple concurrent motivations.