Where is the Balance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ZlLd1fnxU&feature=player_detailpage 

After watching this short video, I am challenged to think about what Aung San Suu Kyi is advocating. Considering I was raised in the South with guns in my home, used guns to protect myself, and plan to be an officer in the military this video is challenging to me. The non-violent approach to solving problems and conflict within her country, Burma, she believes to be best. How does this play out for the United States? Our military doesn't oppress the people like the Burmese government did to the generation of Aung San Suu Kyi. Domestically and governmentally I believe we don't have this problem (except domestically own guns, which is another blog) . However, the US military is the dominant military in the world and I feel could have the temptation to oppress other nations or peoples. Maybe impose our will on others. But where is the balance, where is the line drawn in the sand? When do we need to take action by force and when do we diplomatically solve problems. For example, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, diplomacy and policy in my eyes will not work, but right now, neither does the violent approach. When President Bush was faced with the decision to go to war with Saddam Hussein I wonder what was going through his mind, considering the entire nation was breathing down his back to go to war. Im sure he was thinking about a non-violence approach, but with the pressure of the nation all around, could he have made that decision to fight Saddam non-violently? Im still torn... what is the balance. This goes back to my first blog with realism and idealism, Where is the balance.