Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Totally Not OEP]

Spain and the Portuguese should've allied with the Koreans; they were more amendable to missionary efforts and it could've given them an opening later on into both Japan and China.

In the Joseon period where it was outlawed by the king as an evil religion?

In 1758...

[Totally Not OEP]

And the cause is the pill and increasing normalization of sexual degeneracy.

I agree, but at the same time I take the pragmatic approach that it's better than not having it and as a result having more abortions.

I know you’re not sleeping with them. Just hooking up with their friends, as if that’s any better. But cohabitation has problems to it beyond the fornication aspect(which you admit this encourages, even if indirect)- there’s the public scandal as well.

We've had this debate before and honestly, I've not slept in like two days, so I'm just going to agree to disagree on this one with the provision to open it back up at a later date.

[Fahran]

I think you go too far into assuming blame largely lies with the men for this situation, however.

That's not really inconceivable given some of my own biases and experiences, and I really ought to attempt to argue in a more level-headed, rational way. I do believe that the rugged, hyper-individualistic masculinity proposed by the beatniks that put distance between men and family/society contributed somewhat to the decline of healthy marriages, but I likewise acknowledge that the situation wasn't necessarily ideal prior to that. I'm certainly critical of the antisocial line often assumed by feminist activists that men should never approach women except in very particular circumstances because such an approach makes romantic relationships or even casual friendship impossible. Do not take dating advice from single, ideologically extreme cat ladies. I'm none too keen on no-fault divorce or the rigging of the court system against men in matters of alimony, child support, and child custody either. Or the disrespect towards one's partner being portrayed in a lionized or flippant manner in the media. Really, it's a bunch of issues coming together.

We have financial concerns contributing substantially to the frequency of divorces and time in the office may likewise be linked to extramarital affairs by both partners. Our economic and social structure is one that encourages us to delay marriage, to neglect marriage once we have gotten married, and to discard marriage once it has become inconvenient, often with no shortage of bitterness and resentment towards someone we once loved. The welfare and tax credits you mentioned would ameliorate that to some extent and we've seen success with similar programs in Hungary, but, even beyond that, we need to change our culture and values significantly. We don't merely need politics. We need social change away from the ones that have brought us to where we are now.

As for infidelity and lack of commitment, I don't think the internet, online dating, or dating apps really help. Neither do our more lax attitudes towards appearances of infidelity or the mores brought about by the Sexual Revolution. We've garnered some benefits, but, between poverty, the loosening of bonds of community, family, and fidelity, and the manner in which civil courts operate, we've really created a recipe for disaster.

[Totally Not OEP]

I think you go too far into assuming blame largely lies with the men for this situation, however.

That's not really inconceivable given some of my own biases and experiences, and I really ought to attempt to argue in a more level-headed, rational way. I do believe that the rugged, hyper-individualistic masculinity proposed by the beatniks that put distance between men and family/society contributed somewhat to the decline of healthy marriages, but I likewise acknowledge that the situation wasn't necessarily ideal prior to that. I'm certainly critical of the antisocial line often assumed by feminist activists that men should never approach women except in very particular circumstances because such an approach makes romantic relationships or even casual friendship impossible. Do not take dating advice from single, ideologically extreme cat ladies. I'm none too keen on no-fault divorce or the rigging of the court system against men in matters of alimony, child support, and child custody either. Or the disrespect towards one's partner being portrayed in a lionized or flippant manner in the media. Really, it's a bunch of issues coming together.

We have financial concerns contributing substantially to the frequency of divorces and time in the office may likewise be linked to extramarital affairs by both partners. Our economic and social structure is one that encourages us to delay marriage, to neglect marriage once we have gotten married, and to discard marriage once it has become inconvenient, often with no shortage of bitterness and resentment towards someone we once loved. The welfare and tax credits you mentioned would ameliorate that to some extent and we've seen success with similar programs in Hungary, but, even beyond that, we need to change our culture and values significantly. We don't merely need politics. We need social change away from the ones that have brought us to where we are now.

As for infidelity and lack of commitment, I don't think the internet, online dating, or dating apps really help. Neither do our more lax attitudes towards appearances of infidelity or the mores brought about by the Sexual Revolution. We've garnered some benefits, but, between poverty, the loosening of bonds of community, family, and fidelity, and the manner in which civil courts operate, we've really created a recipe for disaster.

At the risk of sounding like certain posters here, there are some very important facts to consider on the overall front:

1) Women file 80% of divorces
2) Women get custody of children 80% of the time

This, despite the fact that women are more likely to abuse children and are far more likely to commit spousal abuse. Obviously I'm not saying there aren't a lot of shitty Dads out there-the deadbeat dad stereotype exists for a reason-but I think we have to quit the mollycoddling of Women and motherhood as one aspect of our culture.

Otherwise, yeah, you sound about right. I'm all for banning dating apps and reinstating criminal penalties for Adultery.

[Hanafuridake]

In the Joseon period where it was outlawed by the king as an evil religion?

In 1758...

Which period are you talking about then, because Catholicism did not exist there prior to the 18th century.

[Novus America]

Heavens beware something potentially related to realities out there to disturb the comfy safe space that this thread is!

I know it's a stereotypical answer and probably pretty unlikely in our modern culture, but one starting place is to reform marriage and divorce law. No Fault Divorce is obviously the cause of the rise in divorces from the 1960s on and even today is a big issue; yes, the divorce rate has fallen, but that's because marriage rates have collapsed. On the anecdotal level, just about everyone I talk to cites the possibility as a reason they're nervous about committing to long term relationships and marriage in particular; they don't want any hypothetical kids to go through what they've been through or seen happened to others, nor do they want that mental trauma on their own.

Economics is the next, and also equally important aspect. I'm repeatedly extolled the virtues of combining the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit to fund the proposed GAIN Act. Likewise, from the savings generated from that in addition to other new taxes or perhaps other reforms, you could institute a NIT on top of the existing welfare system. This would help families significantly, as data has already shown on the much less ambitious current EITC. Outside of Government tax credits and the like, we also need to be focused on getting good paying jobs back. Both the Manhattan Institute and Brookings Institute, a Right leaning and Left leaning set of think tanks, have shown we could have seen the largest industrial employment in raw numbers in American history within the last few decades and there is still a realistic prospect of such going into the future if we seek to do the right reforms now.

On divorce I agree it is too common now, but we do not want to force people to stay in a toxic marriage either. One thing we do need to do is make it where if one person cheats, that person must pay the other sides attorney’s fees. And that the person cheating gets no financial gain. We should assign assets in accordance with fault as well. I agree we need to assign fault in divorces, in all divorces someone is at fault. Sometime both are we fault.

It is not fair to bankrupt the innocent party, if there is one. Something current divorce often does, which scares people out of marriage.

We already do this with most lawsuits, and assign money by fault.

But I think we really need better marriage and relationship education, and have it a required class in all schools. We teach sex education, but we do not teach how to find a good partner and keep a healthy marriage.

That is a huge problem. People do not understand marriage, Sotheby’s fear it and screw it up.

Prevention is better than a cure, if we teach people how to find and maintain a healthy marriage there should be more marriage and less divorce.

Economically absolutely you are correct, we need re-industrialization and financial support for families.

And through smart protectionist measures we could rebuild our manufacturing:
“Taken together, steps to eliminate trade deficits (by ending currency manipulation and unfair trade) and rebuild U.S. infrastructure could easily generate sufficient demand for manufactured products to return most or all of the 5 million manufacturing jobs lost between 2000 and 2014. Growing trade deficits and the shortfall in demand caused by the Great Recession, and not productivity growth, are the major causes of manufacturing job loss in this period.”
https://www.epi.org/publication/manufac ... e-culprit/

[Totally Not OEP]

In 1758...

Which period are you talking about then, because Catholicism did not exist there prior to the 18th century.

I'm talking about the Spanish aiding the Koreans during the Imjin War, instead of tepidly supporting the Japanese.

[Novus America]

More of an effect than a cause, as that societal standard didn't just change all of sudden and for no reason.

And the cause is the pill and increasing normalization of sexual degeneracy.

And, for the record since I know what you're attempting to say here, no, we're just roommates with regards to the ones I live with.

I know you’re not sleeping with them. Just hooking up with their friends, as if that’s any better. But cohabitation has problems to it beyond the fornication aspect(which you admit this encourages, even if indirect)- there’s the public scandal as well.

There was plenty of casual sex before the pill, condoms and underground abortions were readily available.

It is more a matter of societal views than technology.

And actually cohabitation teaches how to live with another person and shared household responsibilities.

The problem is not cohabitation, it is the lack there of. Common law marriage is a thing in many states.

The problem is when the father and mother DO NOT live together, or people do not know how to live together.

[Totally Not OEP]

I know it's a stereotypical answer and probably pretty unlikely in our modern culture, but one starting place is to reform marriage and divorce law. No Fault Divorce is obviously the cause of the rise in divorces from the 1960s on and even today is a big issue; yes, the divorce rate has fallen, but that's because marriage rates have collapsed. On the anecdotal level, just about everyone I talk to cites the possibility as a reason they're nervous about committing to long term relationships and marriage in particular; they don't want any hypothetical kids to go through what they've been through or seen happened to others, nor do they want that mental trauma on their own.

Economics is the next, and also equally important aspect. I'm repeatedly extolled the virtues of combining the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit to fund the proposed GAIN Act. Likewise, from the savings generated from that in addition to other new taxes or perhaps other reforms, you could institute a NIT on top of the existing welfare system. This would help families significantly, as data has already shown on the much less ambitious current EITC. Outside of Government tax credits and the like, we also need to be focused on getting good paying jobs back. Both the Manhattan Institute and Brookings Institute, a Right leaning and Left leaning set of think tanks, have shown we could have seen the largest industrial employment in raw numbers in American history within the last few decades and there is still a realistic prospect of such going into the future if we seek to do the right reforms now.

On divorce I agree it is too common now, but we do not want to force people to stay in a toxic marriage either. One thing we do need to do is make it where if one person cheats, that person must pay the other sides attorney’s fees. And that the person cheating gets no financial gain. We should assign assets in accordance with fault as well. I agree we need to assign fault in divorces, in all divorces someone is at fault. Sometime both are we fault.

It is not fair to bankrupt the innocent party, if there is one. Something current divorce often does, which scares people out of marriage.

We already do this with most lawsuits, and assign money by fault.

But I think we really need better marriage and relationship education, and have it a required class in all schools. We teach sex education, but we do not teach how to find a good partner and keep a healthy marriage.

That is a huge problem. People do not understand marriage, Sotheby’s fear it and screw it up.

Prevention is better than a cure, if we teach people how to find and maintain a healthy marriage there should be more marriage and less divorce.

Economically absolutely you are correct, we need re-industrialization and financial support for families.

And through smart protectionist measures we could rebuild our manufacturing:
“Taken together, steps to eliminate trade deficits (by ending currency manipulation and unfair trade) and rebuild U.S. infrastructure could easily generate sufficient demand for manufactured products to return most or all of the 5 million manufacturing jobs lost between 2000 and 2014. Growing trade deficits and the shortfall in demand caused by the Great Recession, and not productivity growth, are the major causes of manufacturing job loss in this period.”
https://www.epi.org/publication/manufac ... e-culprit/

I'm obviously not saying anyone should be in an abusive marriage or the like, but I do think what constitutes "toxic" is used way too loosely and today it's more about "feels" which are a very fickle thing. I like to point out, when this topic comes up, how successful Indian-American arranged marriages are, to this end.

As for manufacturing, you know I support giving it to the fucking Commies, but just doing that alone is not enough in my view. Since it's been awhile since I posted it, here's my spate of industrial policies to enact:

The other day I made the policy suggestion of how to reform the standing between labor and business, so today I'm re-posting a package of policy ideas on how to revitalize our industrial sector. Such is important, as manufacturing jobs tend to pay the best, share a direct link with overall innovation in the economy and, obviously, having a strong manufacturing sector is critical to National Security. Being able to defend and, if so desired, expand the nation while providing for good employment is an obvious goal all Rightists tend to share. Once again, this is in an American context I should as far as the policies themselves go. Trump making efforts on CFIUS, which fights foreign attempts to steal and otherwise undermine economic innovations, was a good move. I'd recommend further funding to them to assist in their mission as a starting point. As for things that have not been at all but we should be doing:

- Congress should expand MEP funding by at least double to $200 million annually, while retaining the 2-to-1 match.
- Direct the Small Business Administration to devote at least half its portfolio to supporting high-growth potential, high-tech firms, including a much larger share of manufacturers, with funding specifically supporting SMEs’ innovation and R&D efforts through investments such as in new capital equipment, machinery, or IT software.
- Restore long-term authorization of the Small Business Innovation Research program, through which 2.5% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to small businesses, and the Small Business Technology Transfer program, through which 0.3% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to universities or nonprofit research institutions that work in partnership with small businesses.
- AMTech’s funding should be ramped up to at least $500 million annually and support precompetitive applied research into 20 key advanced technologies.
- Congress should increase the statutory lending authorization of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which provides export credit financing to U.S. manufacturers, from $100 billion to $160 billion, and direct the bank to increase its statutory goal to providing at least 25% of its financing to small businesses.
- Congress should allow the Export-Import Bank to use $20 billion in unobligated authority to lend directly to domestic manufacturing companies that are in competition with subsidized competitors and can demonstrate that the funds would support expanded manufacturer activities in the United States.
- Create a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation in the same vein as the Fraunhofer Institutes of Germany, and integrate the “mini Fraunhofers” U.S. States have created, such as the Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology, the Florida Center for Advanced Aero-Propulsion, and Virginia’s Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing.

[Novus America]

On divorce I agree it is too common now, but we do not want to force people to stay in a toxic marriage either. One thing we do need to do is make it where if one person cheats, that person must pay the other sides attorney’s fees. And that the person cheating gets no financial gain. We should assign assets in accordance with fault as well. I agree we need to assign fault in divorces, in all divorces someone is at fault. Sometime both are we fault.

It is not fair to bankrupt the innocent party, if there is one. Something current divorce often does, which scares people out of marriage.

We already do this with most lawsuits, and assign money by fault.

But I think we really need better marriage and relationship education, and have it a required class in all schools. We teach sex education, but we do not teach how to find a good partner and keep a healthy marriage.

That is a huge problem. People do not understand marriage, Sotheby’s fear it and screw it up.

Prevention is better than a cure, if we teach people how to find and maintain a healthy marriage there should be more marriage and less divorce.

Economically absolutely you are correct, we need re-industrialization and financial support for families.

And through smart protectionist measures we could rebuild our manufacturing:
“Taken together, steps to eliminate trade deficits (by ending currency manipulation and unfair trade) and rebuild U.S. infrastructure could easily generate sufficient demand for manufactured products to return most or all of the 5 million manufacturing jobs lost between 2000 and 2014. Growing trade deficits and the shortfall in demand caused by the Great Recession, and not productivity growth, are the major causes of manufacturing job loss in this period.”
https://www.epi.org/publication/manufac ... e-culprit/

I'm obviously not saying anyone should be in an abusive marriage or the like, but I do think what constitutes "toxic" is used way too loosely and today it's more about "feels" which are a very fickle thing. I like to point out, when this topic comes up, how successful Indian-American arranged marriages are, to this end.

As for manufacturing, you know I support giving it to the fucking Commies, but just doing that alone is not enough in my view. Since it's been awhile since I posted it, here's my spate of industrial policies to enact:

The other day I made the policy suggestion of how to reform the standing between labor and business, so today I'm re-posting a package of policy ideas on how to revitalize our industrial sector. Such is important, as manufacturing jobs tend to pay the best, share a direct link with overall innovation in the economy and, obviously, having a strong manufacturing sector is critical to National Security. Being able to defend and, if so desired, expand the nation while providing for good employment is an obvious goal all Rightists tend to share. Once again, this is in an American context I should as far as the policies themselves go. Trump making efforts on CFIUS, which fights foreign attempts to steal and otherwise undermine economic innovations, was a good move. I'd recommend further funding to them to assist in their mission as a starting point. As for things that have not been at all but we should be doing:

- Congress should expand MEP funding by at least double to $200 million annually, while retaining the 2-to-1 match.
- Direct the Small Business Administration to devote at least half its portfolio to supporting high-growth potential, high-tech firms, including a much larger share of manufacturers, with funding specifically supporting SMEs’ innovation and R&D efforts through investments such as in new capital equipment, machinery, or IT software.
- Restore long-term authorization of the Small Business Innovation Research program, through which 2.5% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to small businesses, and the Small Business Technology Transfer program, through which 0.3% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to universities or nonprofit research institutions that work in partnership with small businesses.
- AMTech’s funding should be ramped up to at least $500 million annually and support precompetitive applied research into 20 key advanced technologies.
- Congress should increase the statutory lending authorization of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which provides export credit financing to U.S. manufacturers, from $100 billion to $160 billion, and direct the bank to increase its statutory goal to providing at least 25% of its financing to small businesses.
- Congress should allow the Export-Import Bank to use $20 billion in unobligated authority to lend directly to domestic manufacturing companies that are in competition with subsidized competitors and can demonstrate that the funds would support expanded manufacturer activities in the United States.
- Create a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation in the same vein as the Fraunhofer Institutes of Germany, and integrate the “mini Fraunhofers” U.S. States have created, such as the Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology, the Florida Center for Advanced Aero-Propulsion, and Virginia’s Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing.

I agree, which is why I suggest like in torts we assign fault in all divorce cases, distribute finances and custody based on fault, and if one person is more the 50% at fault they pay both sides attorneys fees.

That should discourage divorce. Also we should make counseling mandatory before divorce.

On the Indian arranged (but consensual) marriage that is like I said more people prevention than cure, getting good matches in the first place. Which is why I think we need to really focus on relationship and marriage education.

Also it is not a bad idea for parents to act as matchmakers.

Economically I agree, your economic ideas are for the most part excellent.
Protection alone is not enough, and those other ideas are great.

[Ghost in the Shell]

So John Bolton apparently got fired? His claim is that it isn't official yet, but the media is going with "he's fired".
While I'm not the biggest fan of his I am an advocate for regime change in Iran and Venezuela among other countries and I was happy that there was such a strong hawkish voice in the White House. One positive from this news however is more proof that Trump is the funniest person alive right now:

"A few months ago Donald Trump hosted Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, in the Oval Office. Gesturing to his mustachioed national security adviser, the US president said: “John, is Ireland one of those countries you want to invade?”"

What's the RWDT consensus on interventionism, war, regime change and such? I know that the right-wing online tends to be more non-interventionist than academic right-wing circles but I'm curious nevertheless.

(Note: Bolton isn't a neocon so I don't want to hear any complaints about them).

[Totally Not OEP]

I'm not a fan of regime change as concept, but I'm all for taking out Venezuela and the like. I'm definitely not opposed to war in general, however.

[Ghost in the Shell]

I'm not a fan of regime change as concept, but I'm all for taking out Venezuela and the like.

Yeah I don't view anything like regime change as a moral good in every situation but I think Venezuela, Iran and any other rogue state should be dealt with immediately. Of course I support proper nation-building efforts afterwords to avoid another Libya. Iran and Venezuela can be transformed into strong regional allies, overthrowing Gaddafi and leaving Libya to burn was the biggest geopolitical disaster of the 2010s.

[Totally Not OEP]

I'm not a fan of regime change as concept, but I'm all for taking out Venezuela and the like.

Yeah I don't view anything like regime change as a moral good in every situation but I think Venezuela, Iran and any other rogue state should be dealt with immediately. Of course I support proper nation-building efforts afterwords to avoid another Libya. Iran and Venezuela can be transformed into strong regional allies, overthrowing Gaddafi and leaving Libya to burn was the biggest geopolitical disaster of the 2010s.

I just find it dumb from a national standpoint. Invading say, Iran, because "tHeY hAtE oUr FrEeDoM!!3431!!" is just the definition of naive stupidity at best. Then staying to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to prop unpopular Democratic regimes is likewise stupid.

Invade Canada for its resources and land? Okay, that makes sense. Invade Turkmenistan because they don't have Gay parades or because some tribe is disfavored by the ruling party? What the fuck are you smoking Cheney and where can I acquire a plug with it?

[Diopolis]

Yeah I don't view anything like regime change as a moral good in every situation but I think Venezuela, Iran and any other rogue state should be dealt with immediately. Of course I support proper nation-building efforts afterwords to avoid another Libya. Iran and Venezuela can be transformed into strong regional allies, overthrowing Gaddafi and leaving Libya to burn was the biggest geopolitical disaster of the 2010s.

I just find it dumb from a national standpoint. Invading say, Iran, because "tHeY hAtE oUr FrEeDoM!!3431!!" is just the definition of naive stupidity at best. Then staying to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to prop unpopular Democratic regimes is likewise stupid.

Invade Canada for its resources and land? Okay, that makes sense. Invade Turkmenistan because they don't have Gay parades or because some tribe is disfavored by the ruling party? What the fuck are you smoking Cheney and where can I acquire a plug with it?

It’s more like ‘invade Turkmenistan because the Turkmens are dominant over the Tajiks, who hate us just as much and are also drug dealers.’

[Novus America]

I'm not a fan of regime change as concept, but I'm all for taking out Venezuela and the like. I'm definitely not opposed to war in general, however.

Yes wars should be for the national interest, to benefit our people. Not some ideological crusade to spread liberal democracy.

Wars and interventions should only be done when the TANGIBLE benefits to us outweigh the costs.

[Totally Not OEP]

I'm not a fan of regime change as concept, but I'm all for taking out Venezuela and the like. I'm definitely not opposed to war in general, however.

Yes wars should be for the national interest, to benefit our people. Not some ideological crusade to spread liberal democracy.

Wars and interventions should only be done when the TANGIBLE benefits to us outweigh the costs.

Case in point is HW Bush being a chicken shit at the tail end of the Gulf War because the media thought bombing the shit out of the Revolutionary Guard along the Highway of Death was "excessive"; wonder where those same assholes were when those same guys were butchering Shittes and Kurds thereafter. Honest to God most of our media has needed a good purging since the 1960s if not earlier.

[Ghost in the Shell]

Yeah I don't view anything like regime change as a moral good in every situation but I think Venezuela, Iran and any other rogue state should be dealt with immediately. Of course I support proper nation-building efforts afterwords to avoid another Libya. Iran and Venezuela can be transformed into strong regional allies, overthrowing Gaddafi and leaving Libya to burn was the biggest geopolitical disaster of the 2010s.

I just find it dumb from a national standpoint. Invading say, Iran, because "tHeY hAtE oUr FrEeDoM!!3431!!" is just the definition of naive stupidity at best. Then staying to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to prop unpopular Democratic regimes is likewise stupid.

Invade Canada for its resources and land? Okay, that makes sense. Invade Turkmenistan because they don't have Gay parades or because some tribe is disfavored by the ruling party? What the fuck are you smoking Cheney and where can I acquire a plug with it?

Invading Iran is good because it's a rogue state pursuing nuclear weapons and funding terrorist organisations that hate the west.

[Novus America]

I just find it dumb from a national standpoint. Invading say, Iran, because "tHeY hAtE oUr FrEeDoM!!3431!!" is just the definition of naive stupidity at best. Then staying to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to prop unpopular Democratic regimes is likewise stupid.

Invade Canada for its resources and land? Okay, that makes sense. Invade Turkmenistan because they don't have Gay parades or because some tribe is disfavored by the ruling party? What the fuck are you smoking Cheney and where can I acquire a plug with it?

Invading Iran is good because it's a rogue state pursuing nuclear weapons and funding terrorist organisations that hate the west.

That might be a reason to bomb, not invade.

[Grand Britannia]

Invading Iran is good because it's a rogue state pursuing nuclear weapons and funding terrorist organisations that hate the west.

That might be a reason to bomb, not invade.

Why can't we just bomb all of their infrastructure and call it a day.

[Diopolis]

So John Bolton apparently got fired? His claim is that it isn't official yet, but the media is going with "he's fired".
While I'm not the biggest fan of his I am an advocate for regime change in Iran and Venezuela among other countries and I was happy that there was such a strong hawkish voice in the White House. One positive from this news however is more proof that Trump is the funniest person alive right now:

"A few months ago Donald Trump hosted Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, in the Oval Office. Gesturing to his mustachioed national security adviser, the US president said: “John, is Ireland one of those countries you want to invade?”"

What's the RWDT consensus on interventionism, war, regime change and such? I know that the right-wing online tends to be more non-interventionist than academic right-wing circles but I'm curious nevertheless.

(Note: Bolton isn't a neocon so I don't want to hear any complaints about them).

The US should stay out of other countries, period. The existence of the state department is a waste of taxpayer money.

[Fahran]

I'm opposed on principle to any conflict that does not yield discernible benefits to the United States, that cannot be described as righteous or morally permissible compared to other conflicts, and that we do not have the stomach to fight the minute the media begins reporting on casualties - presuming we even allow them to do so.

[Bienenhalde]

Yeah I don't view anything like regime change as a moral good in every situation but I think Venezuela, Iran and any other rogue state should be dealt with immediately. Of course I support proper nation-building efforts afterwords to avoid another Libya. Iran and Venezuela can be transformed into strong regional allies, overthrowing Gaddafi and leaving Libya to burn was the biggest geopolitical disaster of the 2010s.

I just find it dumb from a national standpoint. Invading say, Iran, because "tHeY hAtE oUr FrEeDoM!!3431!!" is just the definition of naive stupidity at best. Then staying to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to prop unpopular Democratic regimes is likewise stupid.

Invade Canada for its resources and land? Okay, that makes sense. Invade Turkmenistan because they don't have Gay parades or because some tribe is disfavored by the ruling party? What the fuck are you smoking Cheney and where can I acquire a plug with it?

So in other words you are okay with starting a war for the sake of greed, but you think fighting for the cause of justice is stupid?

[Bienenhalde]

I agree, but at the same time I take the pragmatic approach that it's better than not having it and as a result having more abortions.

Okay, I actually sort of agree with this. Although I also think engaging in homosexual relationships would be preferable to having more abortions, but I suspect for some reason OEP would not agree with that.

[Novus America]

That might be a reason to bomb, not invade.

Why can't we just bomb all of their infrastructure and call it a day.

If we have to go to war with Iran that would be much preferable to a ground invasion.
Which would require more ground troops than we currently have.