exactly

when i say occupy, its not neccesarily by oppression and force

The Treaty of Versailles being the best example of how imposing consequences upon the defeated can result in the revenge of a naiton.

effectively you need the majority to live in a state of being where they see the ones who want their old ways back as being crazy

We have internal plumbing and light to see any time of day we need it! Why would we want to go back!

Americans talk about not wanting to nation build but thats exactly what you need to do

Precisely. This touches on the current warfare of the past 2 decades in the Middle East. While foreign forces may seek to captivate the hearts and minds of the conquered, in reality the creation of a new system of government is required for the stability of a region. The Arab Spring was infinitely more successful than the previous campaigns of removing dictators, simply creating a vacuum for new caliphates and leaders to take the mantle.

Can you afford it? Probably fuck no. But if you don't it's just going to be perpetual terrorism.

TLDR: Get into fewer wars. Fight and finish them properly.

You'd probably be fine if you only fought one at a time, but at any given time you seem to be involved in at least 5

Or simply destabilize a region to topple dictators and instill the idea of Democracy.

yeah, no they've tried that

It's proved successful in a handful of South American countries.

The challenge is that in such small geographic areas by comparison, new dictators simply arise and replace their former heads of state.

And that often this has served US interests.

and that worked because the area wasn't the stronghold of a religion that frowns upon the very idea of personal choice, much less democracy

our sort of system needs a strong desire to take on some christian influenced ideas. if the people reject that, it will fail. it's like with our current lefties, they reject our founding principles so they're in direct odds with our entire democracy, they want to burn it to the ground

they reflexively fight it

Not necessarily. The modern criticism of the progressive elements of the Democratic party is their gravitation towards care a fairness which manifests into socialist proposals. The pernicious irony being that such systems require the creation of authoritarian governments to for equal distribution, which inevitably gives way to corruption.

i really don't agree with that interpretation of the western left

no, the 'fairness' is a cloaked greed

Theres nothing caring about getting someone fired over a hat

the fairness is a trick to get socialism in the door

socialism is very attractive to greedy people, they get hooked on the idea that they can take other people's stuff legally

Theres nothing fair about ripping wealth out of a starving white family's pockets to hand over to upper middle class minorities.

right

They care and are fair in so far as you are on their side

the moment theres a sniff of disagreement you are on the chopping block

you can be an old white guy and they'll gladly pick you over minorities as a candidate for president

their 'fair' is bullshit

it's just a selling point

"Care and Fairness" being the categorical motivations of progressive leftists as cited in Jonathan Haidt's works. It's important to understand the moral foundations of someone's ideology to recognize why they defend their beliefs.

who told Haidt what their real motivations were?

THEY DID

wtf

No, it's a characterization of political motivations based on beliefs.

Everyone thinks they're caring and fair

"care and fairness" doesn't sound like a progressive thing, it sounds like what they WANT you to think they think.

based on what beliefs? how do you know what their real beliefs are?

they openly say they don't want the system to be fair to people who have done better then others.

and they don't care about the people they often leave behind.