"Looking to the future, I do not believe there will be another world war. . . . I also do not believe the world's major powers will initiate a conventional war. In Korea in the 1950s and in Afghanistan in the 1980s, we have seen that an overt invasion unites the world against the aggressor and ultimately dooms the policy to failure. .... "As I stated in announcing the Nixon doctrine in Guam in 1969, we should furnish the arms and economic assistance our friends need to defend themselves against such indirect aggression, but they must assume the responsibility for providing the men to fight the battles. If a properly trained and equipped local army still lacks the will and capability to fight and win, an intervention by American forces would at best provide only a temporary success. Once we withdraw, the enemy would quickly take over." Richard Nixon, In the Arena: A Memoir of Victory, Defeat and Renewal (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990, hb, p. 344) [mim3@mim.org comments on why the above quote is wrong: The above quote is wrong and it's great proof that war and peace issues--potentially the most important issues to our species-- are not just a matter of "being rational" or "reasonability." Nixon thought that initiating conventional war had become irrational, but here we are in capitalism in 2003 and that's what we have. Already a mere 13 years after Nixon's quote and according to everyone the United $tates has invaded Iraq and initiated "a conventional war." The Nixon doctrine has also been thrown out the window. Most analysts and pundits including the present writer considered Nixon to be a shrewd and Machiavellian president. Whether Nixon was spreading illusions about capitalism or whether he himself had the illusion, the above talks about capitalist countries as if they could restrain themselves to merely aiding allies with arms and money. As we see in 2003, that is false. Capitalism was not able to get enough war that way and now U.$. troops are in Iraq. In contrast, Mao said the imperialists would "make trouble, fail; make trouble, fail again." It's not possible for capitalist politicians to learn lessons beyond a certain range; even though "overt invasion unites the world against the aggressor and ultimately dooms the policy to failure" like Nixon said. The underlying causes of war motivation keep functioning even after the brain (in this case Nixon's) has concluded that it should be at least limited somehow. The question is: how long is the international proletariat going to tolerate this? How long will it take before the international proletariat decides that capitalism's repeated failures are too dangerous to tolerate? If even Nixon thought the imperialists had learned something, and yet, they have not, what should we conclude?]