There seems to be a misunderstanding here. We haven't agreed on what we mean by "intervention". When I say that the U.S. should stop intervening in other peopl

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. We haven't agreed on what we mean by "intervention". When I say that the U.S. should stop intervening in other people's business, I mean that the U.S. should stop planting brutal dictatorships around the world. These may satisfy Washington's interests in the short term, but they're a disaster in the long term. In the 1950s a left-wing government was elected in Iran, and the CIA and the MI6 orchestrated a coupe to depose the democratically elected government and plant a dictatorship. Same happened in Chile in the 1970s. Sure, back then there was a threat of the having the Cold War turning very, very hot indeed, and sometimes pawns have to be sacrificed. But people don't easily forget. This sort of Uncle Sam's "baby-sitting" prevents the people from doing mistakes on their own, and gives them a common enemy, the U.S.. Let them fail on their own. Especially so if their government was democratically elected. There are smarter ways of fighting for resources. I think the 1991 Gulf War was a prime example. Vietnam was an act of insanity that should never be repeated. If you're going to waste an entire generation of American boys and tear the fabric of the American society, the least you should do is make sure the war is worth fighting.