I'd agree that we have not been peaceful. That we are "aggressive by nature" is a jump though. This is really just a simplistic "We've had wars so we always will" thing.
In reality, war-like violence has been on the decrease. Most people try to avoid violence when possible.

Would you go so far as to say we should start wars and risk killing innocents over issues like convenience and comfort... or is there a more exact definition of "interests and way of life"?

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Peace in Europe does not equal peace in the world my friend(Sudan,Zimbabwe,Congo,Somalia,Algeria,Iraq,I srael/Palestine,Afghanistan,Yugoslavia,Turkey/Kurds,Pakistan,Sri Lanka,Columbia, all conflicts going on right with huge losses of life. Do you have statestics to back up your decrease in war and voilence statement?


Thats not what I said, I would not support a war to make sure I can buy a Mocha Latte. I am talking about stablity, I am talking about energy, etc. Iraq war was needed to secure many different interests including safety, we could not afford after 9/11 to have one man a sworn enemy of the United States who started 2 majour wars to be in control of such a rich and powerful nation as Iraq.

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

Ideology: Self Preservation.

It's true that the decrease in violence is not equally apportioned around the world and that some places may have more violence. But overall the world is a more peaceful place.
The fact that Europe and America are as peaceful as they are now shows that with the luxury of peace available, people will take it.
I don't think we'll ever have perfect peace, but I don't think it's reasonable to call humans aggressive by nature either.




I was just trying to get more detail.
Now into the next area to split hairs...
If something like energy and economic stability was at stake, would you endorse attacking a nation that was not actually doing anything wrong to counter the problem, essentially taking resources at the expense of one country for our own benefit but without any pretense of moral highground?

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Luxury of peace is made possible because of the Sword. To maintain peace be prepared for war.



INo I would not support invading another Nation to take resources, take their women and children Im not Conan. But I would support Preemtive war to preserve our safety, to preserve stability.

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

Ideology: Self Preservation.

Preparation for war is not the same as war itself... and it's not even really the same as willingness to go to war. We keep defenses up because we cannot count on peace.

But really economic interdependence is an even better way to secure. Note most of the countries we need truly worry about are "rogue" nations, those outside the larger world community. And war itself is largely being replaced as a threat by other forms of international violence like terrorism- involving individuals and groups that are outside the world community.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Ill have to disagree with you, best defence is a great offence.


I agree and to have such economic interdependence some one has to secure the trade routes.

Like Iraq and Afghanistan were.

Usually such groups are proxies of Nations or Political groups within Nations.

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

Ideology: Self Preservation.

I'd agree if you mean the ability to have a great offense.
Overwillingness to use it can be a detriment to defense (as can underwillingness in other cases).

Well-done diplomacy trumps offense in most cases. Of course such diplomacy is dependent on ability to have an offensive and sometimes on willingness to follow through (other times on not making threats we don't intend to keep).

The best way to secure the trade routes is to ensure that the countries they lie in benefit from them.


Yes, though I disagree that they were "eminent threats" or that war was the best way to handle both of them... but that's another issue. I agree that they are examples.
As are North Korea and Iran.


Political groups yes. Not sure about nations. Usually when nations support terrorist groups it is over some common goal rather than any actual allegience. They take the opportunity to let non-nationals die to support their cause- but would probably not be so willing to sacrifice their own nationals (hate to say it... but in some ways the attitude resembles a lot of our [and the Soviets'] actions during the Cold War).
The nations the terrorists are in usually have a very uneasy-at-best relationship with them.

At any rate it doesn't necessarily translate to war with the nation backing the terrorist group being the best course. It is the terrorist group that really is the problem.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Makes Obama look like a kitten in comparison.