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.