My point was that the game will continue with or without us. The moral imperative to end the evil empire loses its edge. The humanitarian angle diminishes as it becomes clear that whether we act or don't act, catastrophe can occur. Only the times we don't act we don't get the direct blame for it so there's that. But all that's really left in the end is naked self interest.

IIRC they don't have actual sovereignty.

Just a different economic system and different rights. It was honestly a stupid thing to think you could give Hong Kong to a country like China and expect them not to eventually bring them under their authoritarian heel.

So let me guess. There’s a stupid debate about what imperialism is going on.

Lol. He puts me on ignore and then asks for clues as to what I'm talking about.

Come on, OH. Let's be men about this. I have no fundamental beef with you, we just disagree on some stuff.

I agree but sovereignty is kinda a specific term IMO so I wasn't sure if you were aware they're technically part of China.

Nah, to me it depends on what is at stake.

In this case we stand more to lose than to gain. But there are cases where it would be worthwhile.

E.g. if we would've dealt with the Nazis sooner than we did.

In general though it's usually better for us not to send troops.

Well it has one thing in common: self interest. If you see a real threat emerging then it's in your self interest to kill it in the crib.

If you're talking about invading a country like Iraq for their oil I think it's quite evident that wasn't actually in our best interest.

I agree with that.

SnowcultFlake

on second thought I was being overly cynical