Autocacies very much do work. The Soviet Union "fell", since one man chose to give new freedoms to the country.

However, the loss of freedom is not worth the stability in 9/10 cases.

After me, Jai, and that socialist Frenchman all left WL, I thought panda would probably stop talking about it too because we were gone and thus, no reason to argue. But it seems Smedly is still at it lol. Oh my gosh, dude, I can agree with you a lot on many issues but really, some of these ideas and theories make me wanna pray for America's next generation.




On Afghanistan, a lot of your facts are true but you have twisted some things. First off, many Taliban leaders did offer to bring Bin laden in. The CIA did not trust the terrorist group ( But they thought they should fund them at one point? go figure ) which was a no-brainer move. The Taliban was part of the problem anyway. Intervention in Afghanistan had to happen. The Pakistanis were getting their asses handed to them, Anti-Taliban leaders had their heads on sticks outside villages, and Iran was eyeing the region right up until operation Iraqi Freedom. I hate intervention, I really do. I hated putting ground troops to fight ISIS, the Arab nations have enough strength to get off there asses and do it themselves ( with our air support ) and if Obama puts troops in Syria I will personally write him a letter. Iraq was a mistake too, albeit a different type. But Afghanistan had to happen.

Edited 5/19/2016 18:27:35

The Pakistanis were getting their asses handed to them

By the Northern alliance?

Anti-Taliban leaders had their heads on sticks outside villages

So did Pro-Taliban leaders

and Iran was eyeing the region right up until operation Iraqi Freedom

And they would have had a worse time than the US fighting goat herders.

But Afghanistan had to happen.

So why don't you support overthrowing Saudi Arabia, Eretria, China and Burma?

the UK willingly gave up their empire to the USA

there is a good book that describes this phenomena

written by adrian waco

ya no haha

book is called the last thousand days of the british empire

I told you why. Sometimes in this world intervention has to happen. Burma will have revolution eventually and so will Arabia. Basically you just took my argument and did not actually listen. That's the problem with you. You are extremely closed-minded. You need to learn to think outside the box and not insist someone is wrong with a pre-thought out argument without giving their idea any real thought. That's how I became a Classical Liberal ( AKA American Libertarianism ) because I stopped fighting Democrats with arguments I learned from parents and friends. If more people in this world were open minded, a lot of problems would never have occ

Edited 5/20/2016 01:34:31

world intervention has to happen

Not a drop. There is no national government acting for the mores of folk, fighting for freedom.

Burma will have revolution eventually and so will Arabia.

Myanmar already did have one of kinds, and now is classified by those that would start a new war as a "near-full democracy". However, there's some myth that if the theode is autocratic, it will have a revolution. The Soviet Union ended when Gorbachöv started giving freedoms to folk (he never planned for giving full independence to any countries). Germany lost 90% its power after the Thirty Years' War, since it got decentralised - allowed each land their faith. And in the early days of America - there were revolts that were almost unstoppable (or rather, not worth getting stopped through compromise), and that's what led to the making of the presidency in 1789.

Revolution comes in weak countries, and it can come (and even work - 1989 Romania) in strong countries, too - but it's less likely, usually needs some confounding factors.

You just contradicted yourself. If revolution is inevitable , then there's no need for intervention. And do you know what's wrong with you? You call anyone who doesn't agree with your awful ideas of intervention and can beat your arguments , ignorant.

So far, you have not really beaten my arguments. You have just repeated stero-typical anti war banter without looking at facts except for those which supportive of your ideas.


How did I contradict myself? I never said revolution is inevitable in all countries? you went off on a rant trying to compare my Afghanistan intervention support to a hypothetical invasion of China or Burma ( which by its self is really silly )and I simply said that one of the many reasons that argument is unrealistic is that Burma will probably have revolution at some point anyway. Btw I do not consider you ignorant, just typical.


Sometimes somebody has to clean up the shit in this world nobody else wants too. America has had that job for a long time and its getting to a point when we don't recognize where we are actually needed and where we would just make things worse. We need start getting UN support and get the lazy European nations off their asses and actually make some real coalitions.

Edited 5/20/2016 13:57:57

So far, you have not really beaten my arguments. You have just repeated stero-typical anti war banter without looking at facts except for those which supportive of your ideas.

So far you've provided no evidence on why intervention in Afghanistan was necessary, especially when it's done nothing.

How did I contradict myself? I never said revolution is inevitable in all countries

If it's inevitable in Burma it should be inevitable in Afghanistan.

Sometimes somebody has to clean up the shit in this world nobody else wants too

And bombing folk for fifteen years straight will help? Invading a country in civil war between two Islamic fundamentalist groups and then implanting another isn't helping. Neither is supporting state building in countries like Somalia, where it sets them back every time.

We need start getting UN support and get the lazy European nations off their asses and actually make some real coalitions.

You need to sit down , and stop doing this nonsense around the world, and be a real libertarian , not a conservative. You and the liberals have destroyed countless nations. Also, when you sit down, kindly leave folk the heck alone.

Sometimes somebody has to clean up the shit in this world nobody else wants too. America has had that job for a long time

No...no government does anything for the greater good, good of folk: it's all to the good of themselves, ultimately. The grounds that some countries send foreign help is since it's pretty cheap, and makes a great propoganda case. Perhaps Adolf Hitler, he was a legitimate nationalist, you can make a better argument that he was cleaning up the shit in the world noone else wants to - he thought he was, as opposed to modern politicians who eat banknotes.

its getting to a point when we don't recognize where we are actually needed and where we would just make things worse.

It's been at that point for a very long time. All the way back to government-supported genocide of the indigenous Americans.

get the lazy European nations off their asses and actually make some real coalitions.

They're not lazy, they're just not (as) militaristic. I'd rather taxes be spent on free healthcare rather than free deathbringers.

Edited 5/20/2016 17:18:12

ppl die get over it

over what?

deth

countries intervene in other countries for their own interests

then ppl die

ppl die get over it

Smedly, let me make something clear. I am a libertarian and a realist. Basically, I am a libertarian who doesn't allow the make believe world of everything being fair cloud my judgment. I will always strive for equality and personal freedom, always. But I will not allow idealism block my view of what will probably happen. Your right, America needs to sit down. She needs to let the UK, France, Canada, Arabia, and many other nations pick up some of the slack. Americans are tired of sending there kids off to war just so the government can get there damn political agenda accomplished and so other nations can snear down on us for doing the dirty shit they think their too good for. Let the UK handle intelligence, lord knows their intelligence is just as good as the CIA. Let France and Turkey handle the airstrikes, they have the air power. Let Arabia and Jordan fight ISIS on the ground, they have more than enough. Let Israel help too, there in the region.

Lets think about this for a second. If the world is soooo tired of " American Tyranny " why have they not already done this?. Your completely right, the CIA acts like its its own nation, Bush and Obama are most likely guilty of War crimes and should be convicted. So? whats the issue? what's stopping them?. Is it that's its a waste? that's partly true. we should not be involved in half of what we are but we can all agree that we need to fight ISIS. You know why? its not because they cant, not because its against there so called ' Morals '. Its because they don't want too. They cant work together. France would never take over the airstrikes, Briton would not invest that much time unless they had too, and can you imagine if Israel, Arabia, and Jordan worked together to fight ISIS on the ground? They would start their own freaking war with themselves over where the fronts should be!. I am in complete favor of America retiring from the world stage. Heck, if China outdid us as the next Superpower, I would be extremely happy. But we cant. The United Nations is nothing without America, Briton and France. America is the fang that draws blood from rogue nations and terrorist groups all over the world. So defang us without someone else to lead the pack we will see how long the rest of the world lasts against ISIS, North Korea and others.

In conclusion, I agree with you. I find your argument closely resembles bullshit however because you don't think far enough ahead. Sure, if America stopped leading tomorrow, a lot of badly placed invasions would never happen and many lives would be saved. But what about the conflict, a couple years down the road, that must be fought. I will respect arguments that America needs drop off from the world stage once those same people have a back plan for when a super power will be needed to fight for there freedom or survival. Don't talk the talk if you have no idea how to walk the walk.

If the world is soooo tired of " American Tyranny " why have they not already done this?

Because the governments are either American controlled , heavily American influenced or too weak to go against America.

They cant work together. France would never take over the airstrikes, Briton would not invest that much time unless they had too, and can you imagine if Israel, Arabia, and Jordan worked together to fight ISIS on the ground?

ISIS's support evaporates as soon as America doesn't invade every other country and commit mass murder there.

But we cant. The United Nations is nothing without America

The United Nations is already nothing.

America is the fang that draws blood from rogue nations and terrorist groups all over the world.

Except it isn't. It supports awful torturing and enslaving nations around the world, it doesn't do anything against Burma, China, Eritrea, etc. It supports terrorist groups like the FSA and generally doesn't do anything against it's own interests. It isn't some holy hammer, it's a reincarnation of the god-awful British Empire, but with extreme socialism.

But what about the conflict, a couple years down the road, that must be fought

And when has one of these conflicts occurred without being directly caused by a prior conflict or intervention? Japan became expansionist when the US stopped trading, and ruined the world economy, while antagonizing it with military acts near it. Germany became imperialist because a man was able to take advantage of post-WW1 discontent. ISIS formed because radical Islamists were able to radicalize young men who were unstable , because the US had ruined their entire lives up to that point.

I will respect arguments that America needs drop off from the world stage once those same people have a back plan for when a super power will be needed to fight for there freedom or survival

Stopping anti-industry measures will get tens of thousands of industrial jobs to come back to America, and getting rid of the masses of government employees and soldiers will also help, by filling up jobs. After WW2 ended, millions of soldiers filled up those industrial roles. The US also has two large oceans and two weak neighbors, so it's not like it is hard to defend, especially when no country wants to actually invade.

I'll respect warmongering bastards like you when you fight in a war, a actual war, and come back with your same attitudes.

She needs to let the UK, France, Canada, Arabia, and many other nations pick up some of the slack.

You're not noninterventionist, if you support war, just by different doers.

No picking up the bloody katana America holds.

Americans are tired of sending there kids off to war

The draft ended in 1973 in America - noone's sending anyone off, these "kids" voluntarily sign up to kill and be killed.

If the world is soooo tired of " American Tyranny " why have they not already done this?

It'd be dangerous and unforecastable and false, now. Noone does anything rash without loads of time put into it. As I said earlier, power finds a king, and frankly, America isn't even king now, it's China. However, America is more militaristic, so kind of like British Empire/Germany setting here.

If America's taking down, what's stopping China from totally ruling the world? Or if China is taken down?

Why don't you think Americans are cannonblasting Petrograd and Shanghai? Both big foes that need to be ridded. Or that Russia is flicking off the American forces in Romania and Poland, or beginning an unlocalised invasion of Ukraine to Kyiv?

That's now how polit works today, especially with core weapon holders. Anyone who'd try to legitimately take down America would be grinded down so much itself that they would just be even more of a pawn to another king than they were before.

The United Nations is nothing without America, Briton and France.

Are you just kidding at this point? China beats all 3 of them combined, although it is given 1/5 a permanent vote, along with Russia. However, as it stands, the UN already is nothing. They have a few health agencies which are good, other than that, it's nothing. In the 1990s Eritrean-Ethiopian border war, which was over a small dispute but actually grew into a pretty big war on two countries in which half their population was literally starving already, not even an UN vote was called on it, no agencies sent there, nothing, naught. The UN never stops any wars. You can say Rwanda, but no, UN didn't even try to stop the war, but just passively tried to help refugees escape. And that's it.

You say that Smedley's got to stop believing in make-believe, but you think NATO is these moral countries that mess up sometimes, but do their best to keep world peace and order. But that's wrong! 100%, it's NATO that is fighting and bringing about most wars today, and that's why today America is thought as the number 1 threat to world peace, while Americans somehow think that it's Iran that is the biggest threat to world peace.

Iran, let's look at its ongoing wars: fighting in Iraq (a neighbour controlled by two very hostile anti-Iranian forces), and the intervention in Syria (which by the way, it is taking the leading role in - so Iran will take over what America does, it's ok, you don't have to worry about no country doing good moral things and putting the world in order.)

Ongoing American-fought wars? Well, nothing semi-defensive like Iran's doing in Iraq, but America is warring in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan, all more or less against their will. Even though Pakistan and America are "technically" on the same side, there's been so much "friendly fire" and what Pakis call a violation of international sovereignty that that 60% believe that they're actively fighting America.

America is the fang that draws blood from rogue nations and terrorist groups all over the world.

Hmm, Libya is a rogue country? Gaddafi, the man who said that if one Libyan is homeless, he will live without a home until they get one (he slept in a tent every day)? The Getúlio Vargas of Libya, who developped the country, and ended starving? Oh yeah, I forgot, he was Muslim and refused to become an American ally, so that makes him awful.

Iraq? Where America basically ended the secular government that allowed Christians in government (something that the IR does not do now)? That it let loose all the Islamic extremism, funded it, and will ruin Iraq for decades? Oh yeah, I forgot, OPEC countries are either very good, very bad, or very wrecked, and if it's not, we need to make it that way, right?

Yes, America does the right thing, it helps folk. In the Gulf War, it helped the poor Kuwaiti nation under attack by killing 1/15 Iraqi men (while almost no Kuwaiti, even proportionally, died). But in the Rwandan Civil War, where folk were actually doing genocide, America just said, eh. Or in the Djibouti Revolt, where folk tried to overthrow the systematically ethnically-biased government? America wasn't there, but don't worry, France had it covered...to help the govenrnment win.

Really, dismiss these silly thoughts, America's a warmongering country with the same faults as all governments. Pragmatic polit, combined with corporatist militarism.

Why is it that an anti-American government like Choson gets so much attention, when Eritrea, although not anti-American, actually does not have core weapons of any kind, and is rated worse than Choson in words of freedom by the RWB? Eritrea has the highest spending on military forces as % budget of all countries, and is already pretty wrecked through Ethiopian gendarmes. But no, I guess taking away the right to vote for women is more weighty, you're right.

But what about the conflict, a couple years down the road, that must be fought.

No war must ever be fought. Ever. It's never justifiable to fight, even in the most defensive of defensive wars - you stoop down to their level, you become pigs like them when you do. Gandhi made the British soldiers fighting and slaughtering Indians there realise what pigs they were, but he always strongly criticised fighting back against the British.

I will respect arguments that America needs drop off from the world stage once those same people have a back plan for when a super power will be needed to fight for there freedom or survival.

Seriously, do all you know about polit is from Warlight diplomacies? Ok, let's pick Iran to be replace what America's doing, and America should give its core weapons to Iran, too - we don't need too many core weapon states, especially from a country that's not a superpower.

Ok, terrific plan, Iran will start by invading Mexico and Colombia, taking that load off America.

Sorry I could not read those walls of texts lol, lazy eyes and all.



" you think NATO is these moral countries that mess up sometimes, but do their best to keep world peace and order "

^ that's actually pretty much what I believe except for the moral part. Governments are not moral, people are.





" I'll respect warmongering bastards like you when you fight in a war, a actual war, and come back with your same attitudes. "


^ First off, Smedly, I really hope you did time in the military otherwise this statement was highly hypocritical. Also, most men who voluntary go off to war come from very strong, patriotic, traditional homes. They believe its there duty, not some task.


" Yes, America does the right thing, it helps folk. In the Gulf War, it helped the poor Kuwaiti nation under attack by killing 1/15 Iraqi men (while almost no Kuwaiti, even proportionally, died). But in the Rwandan Civil War, where folk were actually doing genocide, America just said, eh. Or in the Djibouti Revolt, where folk tried to overthrow the systematically ethnically-biased government? America wasn't there, but don't worry, France had it covered...to help the govenrnment win. "


^ So what your saying is you don't like America intervening unless you think we should.....interesting






" No war must ever be fought. Ever. It's never justifiable to fight, even in the most defensive of defensive wars - you stoop down to their level, you become pigs like them when you do. Gandhi made the British soldiers fighting and slaughtering Indians there realise what pigs they were, but he always strongly criticised fighting back against the British. "


^ Ok, now your argument makes more sense, there is reasoning behind your madness lol. Yeah great policy, too bad it was just as expensive in human lives as actual fighting might have been. Also, Gandhi was resisting hundred of years of occupation. IT wasn't as if the british came in yesterday and raped all the woman and children ( They did do that over the course of century though ). There is a BIG DIFFERNCE between a war and occupation. I actually agree with Ghandis policies, because he was not fighting a war. He was leading a movement for freedom.





" Seriously, do all you know about polit is from Warlight diplomacies? Ok, let's pick Iran to be replace what America's doing, and America should give its core weapons to Iran, too - we don't need too many core weapon states, especially from a country that's not a superpower. "

^ First off, not very nice. I am an intelligent human being who has made my opinion based off of years of study and thought. I am questioning your opinion, not your intelligence so please refrain from childish insults ( Btw Sorry for calling your argument bullshit smedly lol ) And I actually don't like the fact America has this much power because it has corrupted our government.



" Are you just kidding at this point? China beats all 3 of them combined, although it is given 1/5 a permanent vote, along with Russia. However, as it stands, the UN already is nothing. They have a few health agencies which are good, other than that, it's nothing. In the 1990s Eritrean-Ethiopian border war, which was over a small dispute but actually grew into a pretty big war on two countries in which half their population was literally starving already, not even an UN vote was called on it, no agencies sent there, nothing, naught. The UN never stops any wars. You can say Rwanda, but no, UN didn't even try to stop the war, but just passively tried to help refugees escape. And that's it."


^ Finally, we have agreed on something