Nigeria Vs Germany

[Sandersson Jankins]

Anytime brother

After all, we're on the same side 

of course, the pragmatic tru-conservative tru-american™ and the idealistic right-libertarian/minarchist are natural allies of convenience and necessity and make for better comrades than NSDAP LARPers or anarcho-capitalist helicocksucker meme enthusiasts

[Turkhammer]

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?

I suggest that if H1tler had been brought up short at his remilitirazation of the Rhineland that WW 2 may have not occurred, at least when it did and how it did.  The same principle applies to Putin and Crimea and Ukraine and by extension other former Soviet republics.  How that involved the US in the 1940s and how it involves our security today is obvious. 

Iran today, without nuclear weapons, makes existential threats against US allies.  The threat may actually become possible and therefore temptingly achievable once Iran obtains nuclear weapons.  If sanctions have any role in preventing such events then they protect our national security.

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

Which interventions do you specifically mean?

The US is a global power which obtains many of it's resources and products from overseas.  Despite the best efforts of the current occupant of the White House the US still has a leadership role and if a crises confronts the "West" it will again be looked at for leadership.  In international affairs nobody likes, or more importantly, respects a weakling.  If you are a maritime power, such as the US, and you want to protect sea communications in times of tension and if you intend to defend world wide allies against threats of aggression then you need to project power.  Bases are part of what is needed to do that. 

By the way I can't think of too many countries, in which we have bases, that have told us to get out but that we refused to leave.

i would also inquire exactly how overthrowing democratically-elected leaders abroad promotes the physical well-being of our citizens

I assume you are speaking of recent events (last 25 years)?  You'll have to give me some concrete examples.

[Leshma]

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.