All of my posts are derived from either factual knowledge, personal experience, or study of philosophy. Your stance matches nothing except a primitive, juvenile viewpoint based on pure ignorance.

Your say my viewpoint is juvenile,but you live in some parallel reality where the righteousness rules.You mentioned the americans and their pretext for attacking Iraq as if now after the deed it needs either justification or condemnation,but fail to see that the deed is done and no matter what you say the strong has walked over the weak because he could.A weak nation couldn't have used the pretext,or better yet,could have used a hundred pretexts and not be able to attack Iraq because they don't have the military capability for it.The top dog used the pretext,and the low dog can only watch.

You can't back your own deranged claims, so you call me pompous. Of course, attacking me does nothing for your stance and makes you look pathetic in the process. As the English say, "play the ball, not the man."

You are the one that started with the namecalling,so you might wish to start practicing what you preach..

You said "war is nothing but a playground fistfight on a larger scale." This is exactly right. So, by your earlier statement, you believe it is okay for a 16 year old to beat on a 6 year old and never have to apologise for it because he is stronger.

I'm saying that you can easily draw parallels between the playground politics and the real politics.
Let's say there is a bunch of kids on the playground playing with their toys.Now there is a certain social convention that prevents them from taking each other's stuff,lets call it the upbringing.Now enter the kid who is a head taller and ten kilos heavier than the other kids,and he decides to break the social convention,and he takes the toys from another kid because he is stronger.Sure the kids could gang up on him and beat him,but he can beat two as an example and instill fear in others.Let's say now that two of the kids would attack him,but only if two other kids joined them,but those other two won't join unless Marko joins them,but Marko lives next door to the bully and he doesn't want a problem with his neighbour,especially since he never picked on him personally.
Now there is also an option of another large kid showing up,but they might not end up fighting,they might recognize eachother's strength,maybe wrestle abit to test the waters,and then each look after it's own interest,and not minding the kids lower on the food chain,while showing respect for each other.

As for the pretext thing, there would need to be no "polite way" to start a war if starting a war was socially acceptable and might = right. Since it plainly doesn't, you always see nations giving an excuse to go to war. The only historical nations that have never needed them were barbaric nations like Mongols, but they were viewed with contempt by everyone they conquered. Thus, they kept power through fear alone. The moment that fear was gone, so were the Mongols. That isn't real strength. That is temporary strength at best, or advantageous dominance at worst (also temporary). A honeymoon occupation.

War has always been socially acceptable,but they needed something of a peacock's dance to initiate one.Aggression without a pretext is frowned upon.It doesn't even matter what you say,as long as you say it,the pretext is for the masses anyways.Pretexts are just a tool of the strong to prey on the weak.

Real strength comes from people/nations never, ever wanting to leave your sphere of influence. Not because you force them, but because they are willing. A good example of this is modern society – there is everything wrong with it, yet no one lifts a finger to change a thing. They are all slaves that no longer need chains. Too distracted by junk food, junk TV, etc. THAT is real strength, when slaves won't rise against their masters. Psychologically affecting a person/nation is the proper way of dominance. "Panem et circences" as the Romans used to say. "Bread and circuses." That is how they kept their rule over the plebs in their society. Food and entertainment, and they never want to leave. If they ruled them by "strength" (i.e. the moronic way of attacking, killing, and never showing any remorse) they would have faced constant internal rebellion and never achieved the great things they did.

Yes,we live in the era of sedated society,the best invention of the strong ever.Convert the society in where everyone is a combatant into a society of passive watchers,and keep a small repressive system to police it.It is obvious that in this scenario the strong still rule the weak,but they've changed their method from stick to a carrot.
But if the sedative ever wears off we can be sure that the repressive system will use strength to keep the weak docile.

I actually don't know how people like you function in every day life. Do you even look at what you write and think "wait a second.. That doesn't sounds right."

Or do you just pick a stance because it sounds "tough and cool" and go with that?

Do you?You said it yourself,a decade ago Anglo-american coalition attacked a weaker country.Everybody knew that they are full of crap,but they did it anyways,and no one could stop them.That seems like a might makes right world to me.Just months ago we witnessed the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation,and even though the international community frowned upon it they couldn't do anything,because the might made right.

Your profile says you are 31. I guess if you haven't reflected on your feudal-age mentality by now, you never will.

Don't get me wrong,I don't bully people or take their things,nor do I approve of harassment of any sort,but I also believe that our social conventions fail miserably when someone with sufficient will and strength topples them.