"hurr-durr, we shouldnt have done anything in the cold war, we should've let the soviets have their way"

youb should pick your fights

fucking

stupid.

we never beat them, the kurds and syrians did, and they would of won sooner had the west not got involved or tried to kill Assad

We beat ISIL and now we're drawing down, unlike previous admins who continuously embroiled us in deeper conflicts we should never have been in. It's like Trump walked into a house that was already on fire and is like, "Well shit, I've gotta put this out, but then turn the hose off when there's no more fire."

but you should still start them

initiative has valye if nothing more

"hurr-durr, we shouldnt have done anything in WW1, we should've let them have their way"

We tried to force the arab spring to overthrow assad, it backfired massively 🤷

that attitude only leads to a nuclear exchange; MAD only works with a bi-polar world

You've won this fight but you haven't prevented all the future fights. You need to take some advice from Ender Wiggin

ah yes a nuclear exchange with isis

"hurr-durr, instead of supporting our allies and keeping several nations as friends, we should've left em to be curbstomped, because it just isnt our fight"

fucking

braindead.

a group famed for their nukes

the notion of pre-emptive warfare is ludacrious and has been proven as such over and over and over

you are, quite frankly

advocating for **never** having military alliances.

which is stupid

pre emptive warfare works great

@Lucienne d'Anwyl Don't be the one that throws the first punch, but make sure you're the one who throws the last one.

Actually if we didn't get involve Syria would of beat ISIS sooner, in fact we caused them by removal of Saddam in neighbouring Iraq <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

^^^

you arent giving it the proper context

not a nuclear exchange you retard

Also if we didn't try to kill Assad...

equivalent would be like

The person who throws the first punch is normally the winner of the fight @Marushia Dark

surgical strikes on insurgent training centers

again, the more time passes the more countries become nuclear powers

you are confusing proxy wars/occupations with actual wars in which both parties survival are at stake

the moment a country has a nuke, the game changes

@Lucienne d'Anwyl this dumb nigger is honestly saying that we should wait around until China or Russia or some sandniggers or North Korea say "you know what, we're gonna prepare to take down america, but only when we're ready and there's no chance of them winning", and not do FUCKING ANYTHING until they bomb the fuck out of us with their superior army.

this encourages nuclear proliferation more than anything

North Korea is never going to bomb America dude <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

Let's take your example of nukes. Everyone was worried about North Korea, right? And Iran? Let's supposing one of these regimes actually manages to take out a city. Well, we will drop the sky on them and leave their entire country a smoking irradiated, barren crater for the next five thousand years. They know it, we know it. It's why the Cold War never turned hot, and it's why - coupled with the fact that we can shoot down ICBMs - that an all-out nuclear war is unlikely to happen.

They will bomb south korea or japan before then

@Marushia Dark okay, in your wonderful idea of not pre-emptively attacking, whats stopping them from having enough nukes to level our country, and then launching?

it's not about bombing America; it's about bombing an ally of america under treaty requiring america to respond in turn