[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bad is bad. Both are bad. One is bad now, the other is bad later. No amount of democracy is going to westernize or secularize them away from their religion and hatred of USA, western values and of Israel.

Which is why physical domination by a secular dictator who is dependent on outside aid to maintain stability is the most optimal outcome even within your sick imperialist paradigm. Allowing for mob rule (actual democracy) in these regions creates entities like ISIS.

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That is where you are wrong. For all our horrible politicians and everything messed up going on at home and abroad, USA is the good guys. Our nations actions for over a century, regardless of the motives behind them, has made life safer and better for civilized peoples everywhere. You are an idiot if you think otherwise.

Semite-dominated puppet empires limited by Western values make more humane hegemons than those with overtly Semitic ideology a la Soviet Union, sure. But this idea that foreign states should not be allowed to fail, that the United States has a responsibility to anything other than its citizenry, is a toxic globalist ideology that you seem to be buying into. The US was not intended to be a global empire and imposing our will on foreigners by force, even with the best of intentions, will deservingly earn us destruction.

If brown foreigners want to rape each other to death that is their prerogative. They will waste too much time on that to pose any existential threat to the United States. And if they do want to fuck with us, nuclear deterrence renders non-interventionism a more viable option than ever before in history.

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've seen and read what Syrians thought about Assad since before the war even started. To them, he is a skinny, effeminate, westernized prick and a horrible successor or alternative to his father and brothers.

And I've seen and read that Americans thought Bush was a war criminal who did 9/11. Yet no foreigners intervened and the regime remained stable.

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is both the middle east and the world better off when Arab nations are not allowed to create unite under a hostile ideology? of course. Again, anyone that doesn't think so is an idiot and beyond educating.

Without (((British))) meddling as Ahldagor mentioned, weaponized neopuritan belligerant Islamic unity against foreign aggressors would not exist. The contents of the Quran disgust me but not any more than the contents of the Talmud -- so take your pick R Flair, either both need to be harassed militarily or wiped from the face of the Earth, or both can coexist with the West.

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As I've said before, global politics is an absolute clusterfuck of opposing agendas. The house is divided, it always has been and always will be even if their causes align at some points on some issues.

Trying to ascertain who exactly is doing what for who and what reason is nearly impossible because even the people responsible aren't entirely sure what part of any action or sanction or military action is backed by who. Its just not as simple as conspiracy theorists and anti-zionists like to believe.

You're not wrong about this, but you are still a globalist interventionist cuck.