What isn’t so bad about interventionism?

What isn’t so bad about interventionism?

Other urls found in this thread:

discord
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Stop wasting my fucking tax dollars for kikes

Getting the American D

Imagine hordes of majoos lolis birthing new 56% Iraqis who then proceed to """democratize""" the country Weimar-style, using degeneracy to forge a new beginning for everyone.

We don't own the territories that we intervene in, so we have no stake in their future. Ironically it would actually produce better results if we just annexed the land that we got involved in, because then we would be invested in making sure that those lands were stable, had good infrastructure, and were productive.

Basically, either be an isolationist or be an imperialist, but don't be in between.

Well, it CAN be uses to fix the mess you started if you had the intention to do so. Too bad we really dont atm

>Ironically it would actually produce better results if we just annexed the land that we got involved in, because then we would be invested in making sure that those lands were stable, had good infrastructure, and were productive.
Because that worked out GREAT in Africa, lemme tell ya

It worked out great for the powers who fleeced their resources.

>Because that worked out GREAT in Africa, lemme tell ya

Those were different times, when distance meant something.

Colonies aren't officially part of the metropole/mainland.

We had literal slavery and they had nothing but spears, in the world of equal rights and widespread AK-47's if you don't treat your lands right then you'll you're looking at widespread rebellion.

Not to mention that colonies didn't have the same status as the core territories, while the thing I'm talking about is more along the lines of say, making Afghanistan the 51st state.

>We had literal slavery and they had nothing but spears

?

I believe user means the technological disparity is far different, as we were essentially a post industrial society imposing our will on pre-industrial society during the scramble for Africa and the height of the slave trade

The modern world, with it's proliferation of guns, is far less lopsided.

I'm saying that if we did annex another country today not only would modern morality standards make us treat them far more equally than we did in the African colonial days, but their ability to rebel if we don't treat them equally would be far greater as well. Thus we would have much more interest in ensuring their stability and prosperity.

folks rarely welcome armed liberators

Kind of funny it was Robespierre of all people who pointed that out. He was pretty based before he lost his damn mind and started guillotining the fuck out of people

>I'm saying that if we did annex another country today not only would modern morality standards make us treat them far more equally than we did in the African colonial days, but their ability to rebel if we don't treat them equally would be far greater as well.

Not really. Cracking down on rebels is pretty easy and many nations post ww2 treat it's conquered demographics like shit.

spread democracy?

come chat
discord gg/c37NwyB

It did. Then decolonisation happened a few decades too early

Decolonization has actually been a fantastic thing. Look at how the number of people in absolute poverty rises smoothly until colonialism ends, then begins to fall relentlessly.

>spend taxpayers money
>soldier's lives
>to kill dark skinned people on the other side of the planet
>for the benefit of big nose people
>get nothing for it

literally everything

the bad thing is that the modern approach is to destroy local government and leave either some corrupt democratic system or whomever the CIA supported beforehand, or whomever kills that person. interventionism only works if you follow it up by governing, since by definition you upset the local power balance. but the modern mythos is that democracy is freedom from tyranny, so we don't bother anymore and then reality kicks back.