>That's a cop-out answer. By that measure most conversations are pointless because the other person is mostly likely not going to be convinced by your arguments. Conversations like this aren't usually all that useful for convincing the person you're talking with to change their position. They're for convincing the people who may also be "listening in" who haven't made a decision one way or another. You don't have to convince him, just give your reasons why YOU believe the US is justified in using military force for our business interests.
>
>(and in this case, it wasn't a "mistake" - or if it was, it shows such a level of incompetence that a lot of heads should roll for it)

I'll tell you what's a cheap stunt - putting words into my mouth. I never said "using military force for our business interests". I said military operations (and in prior threads I've talked about a context of military presence). Though certainly military force is appropriate when used as a defense. There's a big difference.


I will give you a prime example. The US embassy in Benghazi suffered a planned attack by Ansar Al-Sharia on Sept 11, 2012. The U.S. (and specifically the US State Department) has an interest in Libya, as it does in many parts of the world. The U.S. has military operations stationed in that part of the world, and had every moral right to launch counter-attacks against Al-Sharia. (The current congressional investigations center on the questions of intelligence, planning, and actual response to the attack).