Negotiator or Intimidator?

Do you think the American Army cannot be beaten, that we cannot lose a war, even the war on terror? I hate to break the bad news, but any army can be beaten. Why? Because of 'chance' and/or 'providence.' Just as our 'shock and awe' did not finalize things in Iraq, you cannot know in advance so many important things, things such as strategy, trickery, luck, unexpected surprises. For instance, 3/4ths of our debt is owned by China. What happens when they call in their markers? Can we finance a war if we are broke, and would we go to war with China over that, knowing they have millions of bodies to throw at us as they did in Korea, and they got nukes too, you know, to which can be added the nukes of their buddy, N. Korea. God help us all when we go out playing war as though we are invincible. We are not invincible and never shall be. Even if we had the perfect 'Star Wars' protective system, it could be destroyed from within if the right people were lured by our enemies.

This is one of the reasons I do not approve of Bolton for U.N. ambassador. We need a man who can negotiate, not intimidate. Intimidation has it's place, but the U. N. is not it. I still believe war should be the last resort, and I do not agree that Iraq was at the last resort stage although I support our troops and a war already enjoined. We need someone to tread the wicked waters so that we do not have to go to war. We didn't have to go to war in Iraq, that was a war of choice. Someday, we might not have a choice and a good man (or woman) at the U. N. just might hold that event at bay.

One can think of many so-called 'invincible' armies... Napoleon's, Roman before the 'fall,' Hitler's, the Spanish armada, many more, and let's not forget the Battle of Jericho. :) I would rather look to an invincible peace process myself, and I, like so many of you, have children I don't want to be fodder for future war machines.