What about persecution of your citizens abroad? Does that change if it’s only their families?

If the countries regime is so unstable that it causes a spike in terrorism and a refugee crisis?

Surprisingly enough, America has all that except the refugee crisis. Why is there no military intervention in America?

Fail to see where America has nationalised foreign investment to any real degree or is persecuting foreign citizens wrongly but I’ll bite. Who do you think is going to attempt a military intervention on america, a country who’s military expenditure is greater then the next 7 highest countries combined?

You just explained what is wrong with your thinking. Nobody will stop America from doing unlawful trash at the moment, neither will America target anything beyond oil-filled 4th world countries.

It is "might is right" principle, with no humanitarian or democratic principles attached. And I fail to see why anyone but neolibs should support this.

America has in the past, what makes you think it wouldn’t do so again? Was Kosovo an oil filled country? North Korea? Cuba?

The reality is that the worldstage has little methods of enforcement beyond might is right, however as America has set itself up to benefit most strongly from a rules based order in which human dignity and democracy is respected and has demonstrated its commitment to upholding that order it seems invalid in this context to say there is no humanitarian or democratic principles attached.

This is also by no means a core, or even orthodox neoliberal position.

I think kazimir was implying modern America and not cold war America in terms of intervention

I see very little difference in “modern” America and “Cold War” America, they are in fact, the same country. That oil money has fuelled radicalism and deplorable regimes creating a greater need to act in the Middle East region then anywhere else in recent times has attracted many non-western nation’s to pivot their ability to act in that region, including China and Russia to varying extents. Clearly then there is an agreement that major powers have implicitly that *some* action must be achieved in the Middle East, but only differ in what form that should take

the only difference I see is that cold war America i cant see any "real" motives

meanwhile modern America claims to be protecting people from dictators and terror groups

when in reality they just want oil and israeli good boy points

Rules based order and Bretton woods takes you 90% there, however your right in saying that a cohesive American grand strategy isn’t really there. One difference with the Cold War is there is no longer another superpower contesting its interests and the domestic politic are more uncertain of the mandate they want their leadership to fulfil. Everyone, including China and Russia are concerned with oil security in the region and in fact in terms of oil and self interest this is not a persuasive argument to analyse us interests with. The us is on the cusp of being a net fuel exporter thanks to fracking but will be unable to export significant quantities beyond canada or Mexico. Oil in and of itself is not really part of the American agenda then right now

Also suez kinda discredits the Israeli good boy points

suez when nasser ruled?

Ye, but there are many occasions where America has clipped the wings of Israel to court other nations. In general that could be a criticism levied at the US, that it’s more willing to consider the interests of potential allies rather than established ones

"Old" America was just attacking the geopolitical boundaries of USSR, proxy wars. There was a reason and it was still not "democratic" or "humanitarian".

The two are hardly mutually exclusive, especially given the Soviet Union saw little need to act in a manner that could be described as humane or democratic. What should be criticised however is the naïveté which has followed american interventions, expecting that states in the wake of such actions will require no reconstruction effort and expecting that in the power vacuum created when troops are no longer deployed to the region that democracy will magically assert itself bereft of any supporting structure or institutions. Or even, as in the forays into Mexico and South America time and time again, recognising the incapacity but eschewing providing any form of civil support, instead simply preparing for repeat engagements to avoid being labelled as imperialistic

I would attribute that which you rightfully noticed, not to "naivete", but to the fact that they didn't care.

Controversial question: How many fighting age males, Jewish or otherwise, did the Holocaust take from the war effort? [this includes the guards and those who ran the "facilities"]. In short, how much did the Holocaust cost the German economy?

I don’t know how many men who worked there, but I have heard that the nazis used between 25 and 30 billion dollars. I don’t know if this is true, but that is what I’ve heard.

huh

Bro what the fuck this is like some Green Party progressive shit

Donald trump the bastion of everything gay and trans

@im in the middle of nowhere bruh nah, hes just a 90's democrat

Wtf

He wants to make America great again

@im in the middle of nowhere bruh ok im oversimplifying obviously

He’s the same as all the politicians in America

yfw some of the democrat candidates were more right wing than trump socially

^^^

tbf

most if not all social issues are just to create the illusion of a divide between parties

just like how there is no true workers party

Democrats hit the social cues of poor non-whites

Republicans hit the social cues of working class whites

but neither has a tax program that actually benefits either group

really makes u fink

That’s demonstrably untrue as neither demo on its own forms a 50% slice of the pop or greater, in a fptp system a party cant afford to be niche. If you want more discrete policy suggestions, you need voting reform

>there is any difference between 90s democrats an repubs