Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

My assumption has always been that critics of American foreign policy speak out of concern for the lives and safety of common citizens.

And yet many who criticized imperialism, will also claim the US can not police the world, and citizens must reform their own country.


That makes no sense. It almost seems like the lives of those affected by American policy are incidental, and the real concern is restraint for the sake of restraint.

But that's crazy talk.

No country should be the "police of the world."

Countries first priority are its Citizens.

That means stop spending money on bombing the shit out of other countries.

Spend that money on the Citizens, that's what it's supposed to be for.

And as for interfering in other countries, U.S. hates it when others do it to them; so they shouldn't be doing it to others in the first place.

U.S. needs to mind it's own business and take care of its people.

Interventionist policy hurts everyone involved, except those who can't be held accountable.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Interventionist policy hurts everyone involved, except those who can't be held accountable.


Tell that to North Koreans, Chinese underclass, or Afghanistan citizens.


If people need help and you aren't willing to help, yet condemn first world interventions, then your problem isn't with the lives of people who need hel



You simply don't trust power, and want it restrained.



Which is NOT a good thing.

How many Afghani and iraqi civilians died in the last 20 years?

Meddling in foreign affairs was Tony Blair.

Originally posted by cdtm
Tell that to North Koreans, Chinese underclass, or Afghanistan citizens.


If people need help and you aren't willing to help, yet condemn first world interventions, then your problem isn't with the lives of people who need hel



You simply don't trust power, and want it restrained.



Which is NOT a good thing.

Why is military might (paid for with stolen money) the only solution ?

Are there zero market solutions to help north Korea ?

Michael malice wrote a book about it and did multiple speaking engagements.
People willingly paid for his hard won research and I would argue his work has helped immensely.

Of course I have a problem with unearned authority, who wouldn't ?

This is interesting:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301714.html




So condemn us for meddling, and give us no credit for aid?

Isn't this simply word play?


He doesn't want Africa "saved". Yet he needs partnerships for unprecedented growth.


That is called needing help.


A fair partnership usually entails both parties need one another, and the simple fact is the wider world has no need of Africa. Africa needs the wider world.

Originally posted by cdtm
This is interesting:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301714.html




So condemn us for meddling, and give us no credit for aid?

Isn't this simply word play?


He doesn't want Africa "saved". Yet he needs partnerships for unprecedented growth.


That is called needing help.


The reason Africa is in disarray is because foreign aid, which is expropriated by corrupt politicians then sold for arms


A fair partnership usually entails both parties need one another, and the simple fact is the wider world has no need of Africa. Africa needs the wider world.

Sometimes interference is needed, like in the Ukraine. Russia is not the Wests friend.

Originally posted by cdtm
I would totally welcome an invasion if it results in better health care.


Can't really argue against many of your points because I happen to agree with them.


I do think interventions are justified in narrow circumstances though. The fact is, the arguments against interventions effectively forbid helping the Jews in the Holocaust.

And you know how I rant about jews (Jokingly! Mostly..) But that doesn't mean I want anyone murdered by their own government either.


By the same token, a lot of the arguments against occupations seem to be directed at relatively benign forces, who serve not as oppression but as deterrents. Afghanistan was like that in my opinion. They didn't oppress Afghanis, they deterred the Taliban.



And yes, they did also occasionally result in civilian deaths, which should never happen. While going after terrorist leaders, who shield themselved among civilians.


I am not certain if Afhgani people are better off living with the Taliban now, compared to when they were occupied.


Of course there are times when intervention would be the moral thing to do. A mass murder of an ethnic group certainly qualifies.

My point is the U.S. has proven they're not acting on the best of intentions, so I wouldn't ask for there help anywhere tbh.

As for the Taliban you do realise that when you were there you were allied with a corrupt government and pedo warlords right? The improvement you brought there (As far as I can tell) was wealth. But then why not just give them aid instead? Why not do charitable infrastructure rebuilds?

No one's gonna trust or like you while you unilaterally make the world "better" via your bigger guns.

Originally posted by cdtm
I would totally welcome an invasion if it results in better health care.

Like when William and Mary retook the British throne(s).

Why condemn your neighbor for meddling in your personal affairs?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why condemn your neighbor for meddling in your personal affairs?

What if I starve my dog and leave her chained outside?

What if I beat my wife?

What?

Originally posted by cdtm
What if I starve my dog and leave her chained outside?

What if I beat my wife?

Then you would be as retarded as the premise of this thread.

Originally posted by Blakemore
What?

Ok Blake, I'll ignore Adam since he's not acting in good faith and assume you're not being disingenuous.


Adam asks why a neighbor would be upset at another neighbor meddling in their affairs. I whip up a few examples of personal affairs, that illustrates how his broad proclamation doesn't really work.


"Personal affairs" can mean anything. From raising your own children, to kidnapping someone else's kids.


Clearly, personal business is no excuse to avoid meddling.


But Adam knew that and was being a wiseass.

It's not an excuse for meddling either.

Originally posted by Blakemore
It's not an excuse for meddling either.


Sure it is.


A husband beats his wife, you meddle.


Like I said to Dark Thor, taking your logic to the logical conclusion, we had no right helping the Jews against the Nazi's.

Thor didn't deny this. He only said he doesn't trust US intentions, which is a very different thing than being against meddling if the situation warrents it.

You're talking in absolutes.

IMO, U.S.A. should have removed Saddam, but it could have been done better. This was Kerry's stance in '04, the only Democrat to lose the popular vote in the last 32 years.

Originally posted by Blakemore
You're talking in absolutes.

IMO, U.S.A. should have removed Saddam, but it could have been done better. This was Kerry's stance in '04, the only Democrat to lose the popular vote in the last 32 years.

Adam's statement was an absolute though.


He said it's proper to get angry at a neighbor who meddles.


Sure, but that assumes you aren't doing anything worth meddling about.

Originally posted by cdtm
Adam's statement was an absolute though.


He said it's proper to get angry at a neighbor who meddles.


Sure, but that assumes you aren't doing anything worth meddling about. Then it seems we're all in agreement, here.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Then it seems we're all in agreement, here. what's the square root of one

It's 0.316227766 derrr

Quick what are the 216 coordinates for my historical codex

Originally posted by cdtm
Thor didn't deny this. He only said he doesn't trust US intentions, which is a very different thing than being against meddling if the situation warrents it.


Its over meddling (especially on your own) which leads to mistrust.

It was also right to intervene to stop the massacre of Bosnian Muslims. Any kind of mass ethnic cleansing is a no brainer to interfere.

But extending that to any dictator? And mostly invading places with natural wealth? And doing it with or without your 1st world allies? And working with regimes just as brutal and in fact arming them? Thats what leads to mistrust and clear double standards. And thats when it turns from intervening to help, to just outright invading and occupying whoever you feel like.


All this skepticism over big Pharma vaccines, but none over the plan of the military complex is frankly quite baffling. Spend your tax payer money to sort your own country out first. I mean worlds biggest superpower with no free healthcare? And yet might and right to invade others to bring them morals? Really?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Its over meddling (especially on your own) which leads to mistrust.

It was also right to intervene to stop the massacre of Bosnian Muslims. Any kind of mass ethnic cleansing is a no brainer to interfere.

But extending that to any dictator? And mostly invading places with natural wealth? And doing it with or without your 1st world allies? And working with regimes just as brutal and in fact arming them? Thats what leads to mistrust and clear double standards. And thats when it turns from intervening to help, to just outright invading and occupying whoever you feel like.


All this skepticism over big Pharma vaccines, but none over the plan of the military complex is frankly quite baffling. Spend your tax payer money to sort your own country out first. I mean worlds biggest superpower with no free healthcare? And yet might and right to invade others to bring them morals? Really?

Your opinions on American foreign policy are ones I can agree with.

The Bush doctrine was signed to make money, not to protect the world against terrorism.

It's like, after Bosnia, they thought hmm, we're getting good at this. Then 9/11 happened and thought "well, we gotta sign it now!"

Originally posted by Blakemore
The Bush doctrine was signed to make money, not to protect the world against terrorism.

It's like, after Bosnia, they thought hmm, we're getting good at this. Then 9/11 happened and thought "well, we gotta sign it now!"


I thought it was revenge for Bush's father.

But I wouldn't say proof of self selfish intentions is necessarily a smoking gun against interventions, because newsflash: All governments and peoples are selfish.


You think it's the evil first worlders against the peaceful everyone else minding their own business? The world isn't that simple.