"What would you like to discuss?" Any of those are fair game individually, Greg, as possible candidates for stupidity, political expediency, or just bad guessing about whether an honest attempt at doing a good would go terribly wrong. (You left out the Bay of Pigs)
   But you miss the point.... making a list of bad choices, sometimes by flawed leaders, does not demonstrate a 'policy', and only a much longer list comprised of relevant people who agree with you, could define a 'consensus'. I could compile a list of those who heartily approved of some of our excursions..... but it proves nothing except that it ain't easy to know ahead of time what the best path is.

I repeat "... imperialistic, self-righteous, gunboat diplomacy foreign policy of the U.S. .." is an OPINION about events. Right now it is YOUR opinion. That it is a consensus is also only your opinion. You made the claim that it is a fact. Write a book...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rahere: " That is all it needs, for a Nation to make up its mind, and to do that, it needs to be led by the influencers of the mores. "

Sounds very high minded and inspirational.... and some well-known people are working at it. But what the UK did after Dunblane was possible because the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, (and others) could BE passed as a restriction on the country as a whole. Many people petitioned, the legislation was introduced, and a law was passed...voila! Lovely!
I do not understand why it is so hard to see that we do not have that luxury. I would LOVE to see a march..like the Civil Rights era... and resulting consensus in Congress followed by a similar wide ranging restriction on guns. I approve of the idea! I would march, I would vote, I would applaud when done. It-just-don't-work-that-way!
But you don't have a system where Sussex, Lincolnshire, Rutland, etc. can resist sweeping reform.... or where attempts at legislation can be amended, held in committee, debated into oblivion, and not even allowed to come to a vote by House or Senate leaders!

You make clear, sensible proposals.... for a different legislative system. Our system, which worked fine in 1795, or 1853, and pretty well in 1945, has awkward details which are studied and thoroughly exploited by the NRA and highly paid lawyers & lobbyists.

And the sad fact is.... all those millions (hundreds of millions some say) of guns are out there! The UK didn't have THAT problem when it passed those sane laws. We probably have only a small % of firearms registered and in any easily available database. Too many are sold 'privately' or are flatly bought illegally. And those who hold the most weapons...legal & illegal... USE the very idea to defend their own guns as a protective measure against OTHERS with guns...and against any attempt by the government to pass laws restricting them! And many of them vow to USE their guns to defend their supposed 'right' to keep them! (We have had census takers shot by rural folk who didn't even want to answer questions about who they are! Who would take the job of going about collecting recently banned weapons?)
Yes... it is an untenable situation. No, that doesn't mean I or millions of sane people have given up. There are small steps being made. Your country is a thousand or so years old, and relatively 'compact'. Ours is big, diverse and barely adolescent, and was created partly as a rejection of being ruled by yours. Our Constitution & law reflect that. It will take awhile to unravel the tangles.