"Okay, is the United States a rottent Imperialist Power, that goes busting into every conflict on Earth and every other nation's business, or are we an impotent political force, missing opportunities by not jumping into the center of the mess fast enough?"

No one said the US was an "Imperialist Power", "busting into every conflict on Earth", "an impotent political force", or we weren't "jumping into the center of the mess fast enough?"

"I don't think you can have it both ways."

I can't have exactly what both ways?

Since the US can't bomb these people into agreeing with some US position, seemingly a preferred method of handling foreign relations, I am just wondering what role the US should, could, and would play, and what it's excuse for becoming a part of it might be.

I did say that except in a generic sense, world-wide sense, in the sense it could turn into a tragedy, the US doesn't seem to have a dog in this fight. This one doesn't seem to be one which would expand too far.

And my question was to ask what the people who are urging the US to get involved thinks that involvement would look like, what role the US could play. I said I didn't understand that.

"If Pakistan and India go at it, somehow it's going to wind up being the fault of the United States."

I don't agree with that. I don't think you do. I haven't seen any indication anyone thinks that. And, there may be some people who do. If there are, they probably have some reasons, that aren't known to me.

Now, it may be that both countries would like to use the US as a middleman. Or, that we have some leverage over India which would help, but my impression of the US attitude toward India has been benign neglect at best. I think we have leverage with Pakistan.

If you don't think the US should become involved, you can say so.

Don't you think some people can think the US might have an entre into some conflicts, and not others, though.

Arf