i would like to ask you, in all seriousness, how passing economic sanctions on Russia or Iran promotes our national security interests; defined as the physical well-being of United States citizens? when was the last time that Iran was directly or even indirectly responsible for a terror or other attack on US citizens? When was the last time Russia was?
You've been weakening those countries using very sophisticated methods for a long time. You can bet they hold a grudge against you, not just a their government but animosity against United States is probably widespread among people who live in those countries. Can't say that for certain, because I'm not from Russia or Iran but I can say it is the case for little Serbia.
Which means, that you can't let those countries get their shit together because that will threaten security of United States. Chances are high they would fuck you up if they had the chance to do so. It is still very basic way of thinking, all about survival, despite the fact we're in 21st century.
It would be great if people could just get along and forget their differences, working towards a common goal but... that is utopia and will stay that way for quite some time in the future.
Also sanctions are good for dividing people, which means it becomes easier to conquer and control them. Internal wars could happen which is good for business.
i would also like to ask how having myriad bases all throughout Europe and elsewhere left over from the Marshall plan and later interventionism promotes the physical well-being of United States citizens
Explained in above paragraph.
i would also inquire exactly how overthrowing democratically-elected leaders abroad promotes the physical well-being of our citizens
There are varying degrees of "democracy" and they all suck. You can ask group of monkeys for best course of action and they'll agree on something but that solution would probably be far from optimal. Spreading education is the only way to strengthen democracy, because only then people can make near optimal choices. Third world countries aren't known for having well educated citizens, democracy in those countries exist only paper. In practice, corruption is wide spread and thus point of democracy is lost. Choices people make are controlled in many ways, their opinions are 'guided'. When I think about it, United States is no different atm. That's why I say democracy sucks.
also that "compromise" bit was a joke, formed around the basis that there is no remotely likely chance that such changes would be enacted. i've got absolutely no interest at all in allowing or disallowing transgender folk into the military; the arguments for such a move are pathetic and mostly I've heard "it isn't just about the military, its about society! *insert reference to jim crow or segregation because apples and oranges are a good comparison*"
I'm not sure about whole no queers in military thing but it probably has something to do with keeping in check minds of people who serve in military. By allowing freedom of thought and choosing to become transgender falls right into that category you can have issues later when you issue an order and your subordinates start to question it and even band together to change that decision. Military doesn't need smart soldiers, it needs obedient soldiers. Queer people are free thinking people, they don't fit the mold.