I don't think we should pull back to our borders. That is a stupid idea that would disrupt the global balance of power at the expense of the entire western world. Although, it would be funny watching Europe militarize. But we shouldn't go to war to spread democracy or end genocide. We should only consider military or financial intervention when it is in our national interest to do so. Defeating a rising imperialist power and assassinating democratically elected communist leaders are examples of when it's okay to intervene.

Edit: The Greek historian Thucydides said it best, "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." The leaders of all states only care about political survival and increasing their power. The US is no exception. The US acts exactly as a political realist would act with the power it has.

Napoleon didn't try to conquer the world. The nobility of Europe was out to get him, and Napoleon was defending France from the constant invasions mounted against him. Whenever a peace settlement was concluded, a new coalition formed while he was resting in Paris. He was more concerned with creating allied buffer states like the Confederation of the Rhine than he was in conquest. Likewise, he didn't conquer Austria, rather he married an Archduchess and required Austria to limit the size of its army. Despite Napoleon's unpopularity with the nobility of Europe, it was because Britain would not relent that the Napoleonic wars continued for as long as they did. Granted, Napoleon had an ego, and he went overkill when he invaded Russia. He should have launched a smaller punitive expedition, and waited until his shipyards finished building his new fleet. With the size of his Empire, he was outproducing Britain, and would have eventually overwhelmed the British Empire

Alexander The Great wasn't a tyrant, lol. He was rather benign as far as a ruler.

Hannibal wasn't a bloodthirsty lunatic out to conquer either. He refused to accept the conditions Rome imposed on Carthage, and he was too gentle after the battle of Cannae. Rather than march on Rome and finish it, he thought the Romans would finally relent and agree to a more sensible settlement. Instead, he wasted his one opportunity to finish Rome in the hope they would agree to peace.

Yes, Tyranny is bad but where doesn't it exist?  You can't buy sodas of a certain size in New York and they are also looking into banning jumbo sized popcorn.  There is also nutrician police that make sure kids have the right stuff in there lunch or they will take it away and give then a "state issued proper" lunch.  Tell me, in your list of tyrants is there any that would tell you whether or not you could see a doctor, is there any that would not only steal the money of its citizens but also pilfer the income of generations to come.

When will China read your post and come save us from tyranny

Yes popcorn versus stoning of women in Iran, yes soda versus the slaughters of syria.

Ignore the ruination by Mugabe, fixate on the Obamacare tyranny!

Great way to make comparisons!

He's going to help them, whether they like it or not!

He's going to save people from their barbarian leaders, even if the people themselves are barbarians who would do the same thing in their stead!

I'm all for France helping us in our revolution, but it'd be a bit different if the Ottomans invaded us and told us how it was going to be while we attacked them regularly.

I love your partial accounts of history. Because being honest doesn't make your case so well? It needs to be turned into propaganda, treating readers like children?

Worked great in Vietnam and Iran. How's it going in Afghanistan?

Keep calling arguments trolling like a baby. It'll get you respect.

I was referring to our failed meddling with their leadership in the revolution which, if it didn't have a role in the current hatred of the West of many, certainly gave them a legitimate excuse.

We're talking about the US dicking around with the leadership of other nations. Just as I referenced, you again have given a partial and distorted historical account. As if a limited military scuffle was what I was referring to, not our attempt to determine their leadership. Are you serious? Give me a break. THAT's trolling, if it's not completely stupid and ignorant.

Regardless of the reasons we failed in Vietnam, I'm simply pointing out that we failed. Similar failings continue to this day in Afghanistan. Why we failed is irrelevant--especially when we continue those failures. My point is that we kill tens of thousands of our young men without anything to justify their sacrifice.

1941: We can't use gas, Mr. President, because the Axis will just retaliate and the end result will be zero advantage to either side and triple casualties.

1961: We can't  use gas, Mr. President, because the Commies would just retaliate and end result will be zero advantage to either side and triple casualties.  Also NATO would probably bail on us rather than suffer Russian gas bombs because we used them in Nam.

1991:  We can't use gas, Mr. President, because the UN will bail on us and we need an ace-in-the-hole to stop Saddam from using his.

2001: We can't use gas, Mr. President, because that would be MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAANNNNN....

QUOTE
Similar failings continue to this day in Afghanistan. Why we failed is irrelevant--especially when we continue those failures. My point is that we kill tens of thousands of our young men without anything to justify their sacrifice.
/UNQUOTE

Eat cow poo and die

Ok community, I call for judgement.

He made a point with Afghanistan, I replied, he said it was not relevent, I proved he started it, now he calls me incoherent.

How do ye judge him?

we can still kill our way out of those mistakes.

I love how you pretend to be an expert on terrorist infrastructure.

What major attacks did they ever carry out? 9/11? I'm not so convinced they did. Is that it? Is that all you've got? We've prevented ourselves from doing another 9/11? What other major attacks did they launch? None. What has a lack of attacks shown? Nothing. They never had that capacity with Afghanistan, and they still don't have it with less of Afghanistan. Shocking.

You're just pretending that some camps with firing ranges and barbed wire to crawl under are inherently crucial to terrorism. Because there's so much barbed wire they have to deal with to carry out attacks in the US! You're just pretending they need camps for anyone to study basic chemistry. Because ammonium nitrate and diesel are so hard to obtain and use!

They pulled it off with our assistance. They provided the bodies, we provided the planning, additional hardware, and conveniently occupied military forces which were ALL busy with exercises that day!