Honey, honestly. How long has this war lasted? And for how long has it been about anything but terrorism at all? I can't believe people still buy the terrorism excuse. It's like someone actually thought they're still there because they're "looking for bin laden". :S

Gandhi kicked out one of the biggest empires in history (the British empire) without lifting a single finger. Bet Fox News doesn't tell you about that, does it? And have you forgotten the American civil rights movement? Oh I forget, you right-wingers don't really like black people, do you?

I don't see how in the world the United States live in peace. There's NEVER real peace. There's always hostility right since the moment you put one foot on any airport. I don't see how you believe that an agressive culture will lead to peace. Plus, we have intelligence, conscience, and free will. You don't pack yourself with weapons and invade countries by instinct. So it's not because "we humans are violent". Actually the first reason why wars exist is exactly what's happening in this thread: some people just can't respect the ones different and the ones who don't think like them. So they try to MAKE them think the same. Oh, that and the search for profitable resources smaller countries have. 0_0

yepp ok sweet just do a salt march into taliban held territory and use non violent resistance...that should get them!! once they see us lying down in front of them they wont shoot us or anything. self righteous people suckkk

especially people who decide to throw in the racism argument...where does it say ANYWHERE on the thread about people hating black people? get a grip

Please read my post: "actually managed to maintain peace and non-violent conflict resolution across the entire world at any point in history" Key phrase: "across the entire world" I'm well aware of many conflicts resolved through peaceful means, most notably of which is the Civil Rights Movement led by MLK. However, these events are usually very isolated to the country itself (hence "civil"). So, again, I challenge you to come up with a non-violent conflict resolution that established peace across the entire world, at ANY point in history. To make it slightly easier, I'll allow that to only cover what we call the 'civilized world'. Meaning, don't worry about unknown tribes in the Amazon that are still at war with each other.

"I don't see how in the world the United States live in peace. There's NEVER real peace. There's always hostility right since the moment you put one foot on any airport. I don't see how you believe that an aggressive culture will lead to peace." Not an aggressive culture, an ARMED culture. Basically what that means is simply: If I am threatened, I have the ability to defend myself. Put into different words - a culture/society that has the means to defend itself is a polite one.

The "armed" culture has come to an agressive one. If you haven't noticed, you don't have many foreign friends that have to travel to the U.S. "a culture/society that has the means to defend itself is a polite one." A culture/society that constantly uses armed repression as a way to rule over weaker countries to get profit out of them is NOT a polite one. A culture/society that gets involved in conflicts they initially had nothing to do with but still butts in in the name of "freedom", is NOT a polite one. Besides, I think the concept the rest of the world grew about the United States' policies and ways to "ensure freedom" should be enough to say it's definitely NOT a polite culture. And like 80% of the comments on this thread pretty much confirm that.

_pk_, please keep in mind I am trying to have a polite discussion here. I would appreciate if it you would as well. That said, I was not commenting on the US' culture, or any particular nation at that. That's an entirely different can of worms, worthy of a completely different discussion dealing with foreign policy. I think you missed my point about an armed society. I think you took it to mean that an armed society is polite to other societies. That's not what that phrase means. What it means is that an armed society is polite to itself and its members. Let's suppose two arbitrary people meet on the street. If both of them know that the other is armed (in any way), chances of them duking it out is much lower, because the personal risk of injury is a lot higher. Now, lets suppose one of them is armed, the other is not, and they both know it. The armed guy knows he has the upper hand. Depending on what type of person the armed guy is, things may get ugly very quickly. Because the personal risk of injury to armed guy is very low compared to the unarmed one. Not saying that two armed fellows will never duke it out. It will just happen much less frequently. Problem, of course, is that when it happens it tends to be very ugly. So, on a global scale, you can say that an equally armed world is a polite world. Ever heard of the ICBM Stalemate? Same thing.

_pk_- Thumbs up. Grasshoffle- Nowhere in this entire thread was it suggested that world peace is a realistic and attainable concept. Those bringing up peace to begin with are doing so as an alternative to this particular war that they feel is brutal and unnecessary. Claiming that the human race is an inherently violent species is like saying that men are inherently rude and women are inherently materialistic. I am as human as anyone else, and I am by no means violent. The same goes for everyone I know. Even if it were true, the fantastic thing about humanity is our ability for self-improvement. Using an "inherent" violence to justify inhumane behavior is simply laziness and unwillingness to acknowledge the potential for vast improvement. And your ideas about "armed societies" are just as unrealistic as world peace. There is no world in which all societies will be equally armed. In the realistic scenario, which _pk_ pointed out, all it creates is aggression, imperialism, and a false sense of dominance.