But it wasn't. It adds nothing to my conversation. I just said I am not anti interventionist and you decided to ramble off about the U.S war machine. That's like me talking about clouds and you going on a tangent of how snow is built from certain clouds. You'd look like a schizophrenic
you clearly have issues connecting basic dots
you mention your point on isolationism being stupid
I tack on to that to explain why politicians in america sustain the same order but its "highly irrelevant" .... yeah ok
 
you clearly have issues connecting basic dots
you mention your point on isolationism being stupid
I tack on to that to explain why politicians in america sustain the same order but its "highly irrelevant" .... yeah ok
again, it is literally irrelevant because it doesn't build upon my point of view nor combats it. I said I am anti isolationism, politicians ideas of warring don't really have any ties to my personal world views.

again, the cloud example is perfect. If I were talking to you about cute cloud shapes, and you went on an autistic ramble about how snow is made I'd look at you like this

 
again, it is literally irrelevant because it doesn't build upon my point of view nor combats it. I said I am anti isolationism, politicians ideas of warring don't really have any ties to my personal world views.

again, the cloud example is perfect. If I were talking to you about cute cloud shapes, and you went on an autistic ramble about how snow is made I'd look at you like this

 
Is reading being a dumbass? Or are you arguing against ghost again?
buddy conflict and military conflict are two different things


conflict is a disagreement , we live with that everyday, military conflict is way past that and is synonymous with war . again stop being a dumbass
and tell us when the last chinese military conflict was. is your final answer being part of the peace keeping initiative with the UN ?
 
buddy conflict and military conflict are two different things


conflict is a disagreement , we live with that everyday, military conflict is way past that and is synonymous with war . again stop being a dumbass
and tell us when the last chinese military conflict was. is your final answer being part of the peace keeping initiative with the UN ?
I literally answered the last time they were involved in a war, you just dont like the answer

btw I am pretty sure the libyia stuff was also a UN resolution so
 
I literally answered the last time they were involved in a war, you just dont like the answer

btw I am pretty sure the libyia stuff was also a UN resolution so
before south sudan
the last military conflict was 1979
even by those parameters you fell short


"random countries" and You mentioned two other superpowers and in the second country still doesnt meet the bar . get off the self thinking bullshit
For people like you , You need to be taught .
 
"before the last relevant conflict" I mean you quite literally shifted the goal post

"random countries" and You mentioned two other superpowers and in the second country still doesnt meet the bar . get off the self thinking bullshit
For people like you , You need to be taught .
I mean I could name France, or Ethiopia. Countries that are over 250 years old are hard to find.

Taught what exactly? Isolationism good? Literally it has never served any country to be isolationist
 
"before the last relevant conflict" I mean you quite literally shifted the goal post


I mean I could name France, or Ethiopia. Countries that are over 250 years old are hard to find.

Taught what exactly? Isolationism good? Literally it has never served any country to be isolationist
Ethiopia has a lot more conflict particularly recently however they've had periods > 20 years without military conflict.


Random countries don't have the extensive history of military conflict america does. you dont need a country to be 250 years to compare even colonized countries 60 to 70 years old have less wars in the same period of time if you were to shrink america's time window. Fact is most countries do not have a military capable of defending their own countries much less sustaining pressures internationally consistently.

I never shifted the goal post , you have troubles with basic reading .
 
Random countries don't have the extensive history of military conflict america does. you dont need a country to be 250 years to compare even colonized countries 60 to 70 years old have less wars in the same period of time if you were to shrink america's time window.
newer countries nowadays are rifed with civil wars and border disputes? see sudan or Morocco

again what do I need to be taught on my anti isolationism take?
 
Its easy to support playing world police and military interventions from oceans away from the trouble lol

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-see-no-trump-plan-iran-following-strikes-2026-03-01/

The resulting conflict from a regime fall would be larger than the repression of the regime itself. We've seen that in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. There is very little reason to think this will be different.
you mistake being anti isolation with neocon maximize military power ideology
 
newer countries nowadays are rifed with civil wars and border disputes? see sudan or Morocco

again what do I need to be taught on my anti isolationism take?
rife with civil wars ? No , border disputes perhaps.


again what do I need to be taught on my anti isolationism take?
its a tongue in cheek comment based on your example with china ...... my word you are slow.
 
Top