Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How much military interventionism is good?

Page 2 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

05 Jan 2013, 3:07 am

BlueAbyss wrote:
It's important, I think, to be super cautious and reluctant about entering into any military action outside our borders. But once begun, we have an obligation to leave those situations carefully and with the right timing, to help ensure the best results for the civilian populations in those places.

There's an element of truth to picking our battles, but the kind of people we have left to fight now are the kind that don't understand anything other than a smoking hole in the ground and bodies everywhere. Hell, that's even their idea of "peace".


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Jan 2013, 8:38 am

John_Browning wrote:
For military intervention, most of the time places need to either get nuked or we need to dig in and build a perimeter around a place and let the savages destroy each other.


There is no practical way or maintaining a cordon sanitaire around any appreciable area of the world.

One way to produce the effect you suggest is to stay out of certain conflicts as much as our own safety permits.

ruveyn