Do not worry, even as you read this they are furiously working at neck break pace in schemes to duplicate the chinese model, the USA will have the chinese model even before Fox becomes a porn channel.

Typical "I am the center of the world thinking", I fail to see the specific environment you mention (without giving any names) is some kind of common scenario. Your statement is fallacious at best, a big lie at worst.

Because neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had China as their buddy. Check out why the previous war in Korea ended in a stalemate.

Yeah, you can also live without cloths, but I have yet to see anyone think something that stupid.

Each passing day big brother becomes more real :(

So he is also into bestiality?

Assassination will not always prevent a war i.e. Some people think that assassinating Hitler would have prevented WWII when truth be said germans as a nation liked that idea and some else would have become the new leader (and maybe he would have been a german) that started the war. Also remember sometimes an assassination has been the perfect excuse to start a war (as in WWI).

Diplomacy has limits, that is why Nations have armies, as deterrents for other nations which would no doubt commit mass murder and get the land (i.e. remember native americans) otherwise.

It is not that the British were eager to grant independence to their colonies, they were simply unable to control them after WWII devastated their economy and their troops. If they could, the British would have retained India as a colony at least a few decades after WWII because it represented quite an steady income, quite the opposite to the American colonies, which did not granted an important source of income at a time when the British were fighting a truly important war with the French, they would no doubt have preferred a negotiation that eliminated the need to send troops to the colonies but preserved the goods trade (that was the only real income they received from the colonies).

The point here is that even if Hitler had managed to reach power, he would not have enough support to wage war to the world if the obvious Treaty of Versailles had not had the intent of growth of the german nation.. About Germany being a militaristic power, you seem to forget that before WWI they were not truly an unified nation, the economy blockage from the true military powers of that time period were the cause of WWI (the US/Britain did the same thing to Japan before WWII), had they allowed Germany to "take a seat" as an emerging economy would have prevented that war, or do you think the west should wage war on China and India to prevent them from emerging as military powerhouses? You would only get history repeating itself.

What is right to somebody is wrong for someone else, that is why History is written by those who won the conflict. Gandhi managed to get independence from the British without waging war, is there any reason why it would have been impossible for the colonies to achieve the same using the same diplomatic strategy? The Civil War did not started because of freeing the slaves, that was an afterthought, it was merely a politically motivated war (remember Iraq?) by a very politically weakened Lincoln (would you like today a civil war just because the president is a sitting duck, think carefully, you might get your wish). World War II would have never happened if the Versailles did not placed such draconian economic penalties over the germans.

You can defend from war by building up defenses (both military and diplomatic) before an actual conflict starts, pillage is quite profitable, a war of attrition is quite the opposite. As an example, Spain never invaded Portugal for the very reasons I commented above.

You make it sound like there are wars that are justified, they are not, they are bloody murder and pillaging under the mantle of righteousness.

you forgot year zero (or are you born having 1 year already under your belt?)

A job maybe? Oh, you still have yours, do not worry, we will ship it to asia befeore you know it.