@Inkerman: I'd like to see your sources on some of this prosperity growth. Also, you are suggesting that all US interventionist results in success. For example, did the Allies (the US wasn't the only nation fighting for South Korea) stop North Korea from taking the South? Probably. Did they liberate the North from it's tyrants? No. In fact, the territory line between the two countries was pretty much the exact same at the war's end as it was when the war started. So is that a success, or just a meaningless squabble? Also, let's not forget about Vietnam. I don't care who you are, there is no way in hell that you can call that a successful venture.
Also, remember when the US intervened by arming the 'freedom fighters' during the Russo-Afghan war during the 80s? Remember how, when the war was over, they formed the Taliban, and later crashed two 747s into the World Trade Centers? Me too. You may have also noticed that anti-US sentiment in the Middle East has been growing steadily over the past few years. Maybe it has something to do with the threat of UAV airstrikes constantly looming over their heads. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the US continues to supply Israel with better weapons that can kill a whole lot more people than suicide bombers can.
I could go on, but I'm really fucking tired. TL;DR: US intervention costs more (money and lives) than it does good. There is a reason why the US hasn't attacked Iran yet.
EDIT: I forgot to mention something. The reason why the Balkans were a shithole in the 90's (and still are, arguably) is due to the fact that Communism made them dirt poor; from what I can tell, any US intervention has done little to remedy this, other than inadvertently giving aid to the wrong people (corrupt governments, crime groups, ect.)
Log in to comment