Postcards and Physical maps are timeless

IT ALSO INVOLVES GUNS

>Carry a gun with no permit? Sure, why not?

Hell Yes

>Smoke a joint

Hell Yes

That's the FREEDOM way

LET'S FUCKING GO, ACTUAL GOD DAMN FREEDOM

Your implication is intelligence but the correct answer is shared political interests. It's because Republicans aren't interested in appealing to the college educated crowd anymore, which used to be a strong suit of theirs.

Not at all. If another country isn't a vassal state then it isn't imperialism

>Korea was a tie.

By no means can you claim that winning half of the peninsula when it was completely occupied a tie.

>Six of these "wins" are Iraq or Libya.

And? They are still separate wars with distinct missions.

>This list shows we are great at installing a US friendly dictator quickly or getting stuck in a protracted war.

The list really isn't as simple as you make it sound. Only in one of these Wars did the United States seek to install a dictatorship where a democratic regime was in place, the Dominican Civil War, and in others like in Indonesia, Veitnam, and Libya, it wasn't really a set of good choices, just useful or not.

In far more conflicts, the United States overthrew dictatorship to restore/set up democracy: Panama, Iraq, Grenada, Kosovo, Bosnia/Croatia, Somali (attempted), Afghanistan (while we were there), Korea.

>Helping our BFF MBS conduct a genocide in Yemen is not really a military win, so much as a war crime.

Did I say every War was moral? Fuck no. And the Military can win an immoral conflict. Also that is ongoing so it has no determination.

>We're still in Iraq even though they asked us to leave.

Some of them asked us to leave, but many asked us to stay. It isn't as cut and dry as you pretend it is.

>You think we could've won Vietnam, Laos, or Afghanistan if we'd only had more political will?

With Afghanistan unquestionably yes, that was the status quo. Veitnam and Laos are more questionable, but like all guerrilla fighters against superior forces their goal was to make us not want to fight more than to beat us militarily. That is the Total Defense Strategy, making the occupying forces quit before they can gain total control.

>Now, we did eventually "win" in Indonesia with a brutal right wing coup, but... Uh... brutal right wing coup.

Sure, but we were talking about Wars, not coups. They aren't the same thing.

>You don’t have what it takes

Ah, I see the faux-tough guy position takes are all the you have, because the Geopolitics of the situation don't add up for you so it's all personal attacks.

The only thing that matters are the ethical, strategic, and logistical concerns when determining whether or not intervention, new or continued, is a good idea. Not whether or not I could personally carry out the mission because someone on the internet needs an ego boost.

The reasons to stay on Syria are quite clear. Finish off the last of ISIL, pressure the genocidal Assad Regime, help stability for Kurdish people, undermine our geopolitical enemies in Iran and Russia. Russia being the key player here because that is a global impact with Ukraine, and with Russia and China's alliance growing, we need to undercut them everywhere we can. In addition, the United States has the obligation to help every single refugee we possibly can and if we can help Syria establish a democratic government despite the hardship recently faced that would also be miraculous.

"my appeal to authority is all I need, because who cares about ethics"

Whatever the immigrant group that is inconvenient at the time. So Chinese people

No one is being prescribed that stuff at 6

1. Overthrowing genocidal maniacs is a good thing and we shouldn't apologize for that. This Hitchens piece about Iraq applies all the same to Syria, except with the WMD lie from bush and Russia is using Syria as a puppet state.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/03/so-mr-hitchens-weren-t-you-wrong-about-iraq.html

2. It is bloodthirsty to be an apologist for Assad and his cohort in the name of being anti-war over pro-peace and freedom. What good is avoiding war if only to live under the iron fist of a dictatorship?

3. How many innocent people are you willing to have be slaughtered in the name of preservation of your anti-war stance so you can signal your virtuous high horse?

>despite not winning a war in 75 years

I see you know absolutely nothing about US Military intervention. Here is every war completed and inarguably won since WW2:

• Korea (1950-1953)
• Lebanon (1958)
• Dominican Republic (Civil War, 1965-1966)
• Korea DMZ (1967-1969)
• Grenada (1983)
• Libya (1986)
• Tanker War (1987-1988)
• Panama (1989-1990)
• Gulf War (1990-1991)
• Iraqi no-Fly Zone (1991-2003), Prevented Saddam from commiting larger genocide
• Haiti (1994-1995)
• Kosovo (1998-1999)
• Pakistan (2004-2018), Pakistan asked us to intervene against the Taliban
• Somali Pirates (2009-2016)
• Libya (2011)
• Uganda (Lord's Resistance Army, 2011-2017)
• Iraq ISIL (2014-2021)
• Libya (2015-2019)

This is just wars in which the United States formerly sent troops to a situation and that went out way both on the battlefield and politically afterwards. Normally wars won are shorter and less memorable, but not always.

The list of ongoing Conflicts are as follows:

• Yemen, (2002 - Present)
• Somali, against Mujahideen, al Shabab, ISIS (2007 - Present)
• Syria, against ISIS, Russia, and Assad Regime (2014 - Present)
• Niger, to stop Boko Haram (2018 - Present)

Wars with mixed outcomes that ended:

• Bosnia/Croatia (1992-1995), this war was a stalemate effectively which ended in the Dayton Accords and an akward situation for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Iraq (2003-2011), Saddam and Ba'ath party were gone. Iraq got a democratic government despite it being shaky, and overall less violence, but ISIS and other such groups were formed from this conflict, which forced the US to return in 2014.

For the United States, most losses come not from lack of Military might but from lack of political will, because that is how smaller groups beat larger nations in war. The definite losses:

• Veitnam (1965-1973 US, 1955-1975 Overall), remember we didn't start this war, it was ongoing before we got involved.
• Loatian Civil War (1959-1975)
• Permesta Rebellion Indonesia (1958-1961)
• Bay of Pigs (1961)
• Somali (1992-1995)
• Afghanistan (2001-2021), succeed in initial mission, but couldn't hold the country forever from Taliban as the geography is difficult to control and other geopolitical goals became more pressing.

Because this is a good thing. But they should vote to authorize it affirmatively.

1. Assad needs to be held in check

2. ISIS needs to be defeated where it can be

3. Any opportunity to stop Russian imperialism is good actually

4. Stopping genocidal regimes is good actually

5. Benefits our relationship with Turkey

You can see in the chart from the Canadian Climate service

Part of the reason we use worse materials is because the colder climate and more snow rips the roads up faster. For our altitude we get about the same amount of snow as northern Sweden, which is absurd to think about.

https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/snow-extent-northern-hemisphere-christmas-rising-usa-eu-forecast-rrc/

It looks better than I thought it would, but it needs more lines. The issue with modernist buildings is they don't draw the eye to make obvious distinctions about the entrances and other key features

Build baby build

OH MY GOD, JUST DO A LAND VALUE TAX, AND WE COULD STOOP WITH THIS NONSENSE ABOUT WHICH PEOPLE DESERVE PROPERTU TAX BREAKS

But connections with Massachusetts will increase demand, which will help with commecting the state

I'm not sure that really means much intrinsically. Just look at these graphs showing the United States vs the ither G7 nations Income at each decile PPP adjusted, I'm not sure you can say that the Gini Coefficient being higher means much when the middle deciles in the United States have higher incomes.

https://dart.lisdatacenter.org/dart

Sort by the following:

• Equilivalised Disposable Income
• Median (PPP in $ USD)
• Income Deciles

This is income not wealth

Same reaspn the Dems won't do it

His position is "the state will legalize when the federal government does"