OldWorldOrder
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,820
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Has it? You still offer no numbers nor analysis. You yourself said that this was a complex issue well before, yes? Did you take the time to disentangle the non-linear effects to say that interventionism=better? Or are you taking coincidence of economy and claiming that interventionism had positive effect on it? I just want your evidence for the claim, nothing more.
Well, the evidence would be found in the positive effect that oil from the Middle East after World War II had on the American economy and thus people. The evidence would be found in the power of United Fruit. The evidence is everywhere. I'm kinda shocked that you 'want proof' (although I've already given you one graph), but you're not doing anything to support your claims. But then again...your sig...
You have proof for this, or is it just assumption? My opinion is that without the interventionism our actions wouldn't play into the hands of terrorists. Hell, had we not trained OBL and the terrorists to fight the Russians, we'd likely see decreased threat now. Each time we intercede unjustly into foreign lands, we play into the propaganda of terrorists. We make the world a little less stable, a little more at risk. You can only bomb people for so long before they become REALLY pissed off about it, and if they can find no satisfaction through diplomatic means, they are all the more likely to try non-diplomatic means.
The US didn't train OBL. I honestly stopped reading there.
Not really. It's simplified because there has been growth in sectors not in industry, but those revolve around technology and would require that we educate more of our population to maintain. However, the wealth gap is not confused and the buying power is not confused. One of the reasons people bitch that we can't buy our own products is because wealth distribution did not keep up with labor and environmental laws. So to subsidize that, we use slave labor where we can get it. Currently it's China. Which in and of itself does lend to some stability because China is less likely to involve itself militarily against the United States with its economy so deeply entwined with our own. Which would bolster my point that trade, not war, make for stability.
Using cheap labor isn't knew. That has nothing to do with US policies, really.
Government is the same way. I did say it was necessary, and its necessity is in securing the rights and liberties of the People. Anarchy does not work. Measured fact as well. So we must have some, but too much currently has affected our freedom and liberty as well as put us in more danger of international retaliation.
So you just subjectively say it's too much. I say it's not. Okay. Stop pushing your opinion as fact, thanks.
I can marry a guy in some states. It's not a wash though, all you have is superficial things which obviously would have been allowed had we invested in our freedom instead of killing those around us.
You also only have superficial things, then. You're not the arbiter of what is or isn't superficial.
We have something worse. A former Soviet block selling arms to others, not being able to account for some, and we trained the terrorists to help fight them and that pretty well backfired.
That's not worse.
Overall cost of the WoT. 1% of our debt
You didn't answer my question.
Indeed it is. America has some of the most aggressive police in the world. We also jail more people per capita than any other nation on the planet. We've restricted areas of free speech, we monitor the "malcontents", there is no privacy anymore, and the 9th and 10th amendments are all but ignored.
loooooooooooool?! Where else have you been?!
If you're ever honest about the data, you'd see it already.
You've not shown me one link whatsoever. And you've argued purely from emotion thus far.
You said it helped, so that means it made things a bit better, I'm just trying to see if you could actually quantify your statements. Pssst....you haven't.
Psssst...you don't know how to read a graph.
Are we? We no longer have the Soviet Union it's true. But we're worried about North Korea having weapons, Iran going nuclear, Russia not being able to account for all its nukes, etc.
And? We were worried about North Korea before that. Pakistan before that. India before that. South Africa before that. Israel before that. These things have nothing to do with American policy.
Because you've produced nothing to actually back it up other than saying the same thing again. Of course the standards of living neigh across the globe have increased but proportionally so? And still? 70+ years we've been in the ME, how have we fared?
We've fared well? Are you student of history or what? I don't mean youtube videos, I mean real scholarly works. Mearsheimer. Walt. Waltz. Kyle. Coll. History didn't start in 1999.
Oh, America make some money, it's just that the money isn't distributed along natural demographics. Which is the dishonesty in that plot of yours, you're purposefully skipping over all the statistics.
We already talked about the gilded age. Wealth disparity was much worse than now. And the graph covers that so.....
Stop being so emotional. Start learning even basic historical things, like who trained OBL. Otherwise I can't continue.