I'm still kinda NeoCon convince me otherwise

It's mainly that I think the west should bomb and occupy backward countries and cultures until they're better, and we should profit from it in the process.

What's so wrong with that?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wHmhf_wrcrM
youtube.com/watch?v=W6syr1tjbgA
youtube.com/watch?v=ccdeANvo2bg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

But NeoCons do it for banks, not national interest

>bombing countries makes them better

no we should fuck off and leave them to their own devices

>It's mainly that I think the west should bomb
Ok
> and occupy backward countries and cultures until they're better
No
>we should profit from it in the process.
Ok

Nation building is a waste of time. Their society and people are too primitive for democracy. They operate best under dictatorships.

With the rise in influence of minorities in this country democracy is failing us as well.

We have our own problems we need to take care of before taking care of the rest of the world's bullshit. How can we build other nations when we need to still work on building our own?

It's good in theory but these days there are so many international treaties and sanctions to prevent those kind of things from happening. But yes, if the US government took over Libya, Egypt, Iraq, etc. after they had wars and uprisings they'd probably be better off and we would be too

Literally killing muslims is the only thing that will make muslim countries better

1. They cannot get better, economically speaking, if you're constantly destabilizing and bombing them.

2. Democratic countries (the West) are the last countries you'd want to do this, given the history of back biting politicians undermining all recent war efforts. The weakest people (cowardly Westerners, who can't even handle a mere 4000 casualties) have no business attempting to enforce their way of life by arms.

3. All it really succeeds in achieving is a mass exodus of the lowest of the low refugees into Europe.

Peace through strength, not war.

fuck off, jew

>good in theory

only if you're some kike trying to con americans into dying for you

youtube.com/watch?v=wHmhf_wrcrM

>what so wrong with that?

those "backwards countries" are like that because u.s. foreign policy consists of invading them, bombing them, using proxy militias, and installing puppet dictators for regime change. your worldview is textbook sollipsism

How come this strategy worked in Germany, Japan, and South Korea but not the Middle East?

except that hasn't worked well.

Wall them off and make them fight there on stupid little wars in the godforsaken desert they've created. We get NOTHIGN by sending our children to die for stupid corporate interests that NeoCons represent.

If it was up to me, I'd arm terrorist groups within Syria and Iraq with WMD's that were trackable so they could just wipe each other out. It's downright fucking stupid to get involved in taht shit.

Wall them off, let other nations deal with their own problems. Absolutely no immigration whatsoever.

In short, fuck 'em. Maybe a few bombing runs now and again to keep things interesting. But thats it.

And if we DO go to war, it has to be all-or-nothing. None of this half-assed, one foot in the door one foot out like we've been doing for our military conflicts the past 40+ years. Shits stupid, and occupying territories is dumb. NeoCons are almost as bad as liberals are foreign policy. NATO is outdated, and other countries should fend for themselves.

because it wasn't remotely the same strategy

Muslims need a strongman in charge to keep the terrorists from taking over

when you topple the strong secular leader in a middle eastern country you are handing the country over to terrorists on a silver platter.

see: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and evey other state since the arab nationalists were deposed

youtube.com/watch?v=W6syr1tjbgA

Highly unified countries all, so little potential for instability without outside powers imposing it.

Only exception being Korea, but that's not reeally Korea so much as it is gommunism.

Furthermore, we were pretty thorough in wiping out the problematic elements in those countries. We cannot do this today because Western peoples are weak and unable to stomach mass casualties or low key war crimes.

We are simply not fit for policing the world anymore.

>profit from it in the process

The people who profit from empires are the oligarchs.

>I'd arm terrorist groups within Syria and Iraq

slow down there, Obama, we already know what you're up to

youtube.com/watch?v=ccdeANvo2bg

>weisenthal

Whats wrong with letting them kill each other off? Why not give ISIS or Al-Nusra a nuclear weapon to flatten Raqqa or Aleppo? Surely all of ISIS would die for their cause. Whats the problem with that?

>oy vey why aren't you letting in all these poor refugees

that's what's wrong with it

intervention has only made them worse off, objectively

this, you have no understanding of where youre money is going.

The West is afraid of other cultures due to paranoia from being looked up upon and being seen and viewed as tbe most powerful and the caretakers of the world

In a perfect world, we wouldn't, and most of the population would be killed in a usage of a WMD. I already made it clear in my post that for my plan to work it would require securing the borders to the fullest extent and not allowing any immigration whatsoever. If that was achieved, do you think it would be a workable solution? Genuinely asking

>because it wasn't remotely the same strategy
Yeah, I didn't word that quite right.

>let's do bad shit
>What's so wrong with that?

>we should profit from it in the process.
Youre not the one profiting my friend

Are you seriously asking me if it's a good idea to give even more Muslim countries full access to nukes?

No, Pakistan is too much as it is.

The best plan for the middle east is population control followed by slow, white mass immigration, same goes for all the other shitskin countries. A few of the natives can stay around and operate casinos like in the US while being given free booze.

>we should profit from it
>we

Yeah, I do think it is. Because they will only use them on each other. And it wouldn't have to be a nuclear weapon, it could be weaponized nerve gas or something, like VX. If it was trackable and could be kept an eye on, they would be able to very quickly kill themselves. There simply aren't enough white people to do what you proposed, much less any who would WANT to move there.

Getting them to destroy themselves would be the best option, would keep them preoccupied with killing each other, and would cause a final victor to emerge. If they are quarantined to they little hell on earth and genocide they're OWN people, they would be doing the rest of the world a favor and our hands would be somewhat clean.

It violates the Prime Directive, OP.

Estonia needs to develop a language on its own.