So I am of two minds with regards to foreign intervention by the US.<p>On one hand, I&#x27;m horrified at the things the US does. We kill innocents, we send our own citizens to die for really very little reason, and we spend an epic fuck ton of money with very little to show in terms of tactical results. We stick our nose in situations that don&#x27;t involve us just because we can, and I&#x27;m tired of the US always being the world&#x27;s police force.<p>On the other hand, global power politics aren&#x27;t about playing nice. As far as hegemonist world powers throughout history go, the US is <i>relatively</i> benevolent (wiretaps and extrajudicial renditions are nothing compared to the genocides perpetrated by nearly every preceding global power). In the absence of a dominant global power, you would have multiple equally-matched regional powers vying for supremacy -- a situation that would almost certainly end in war and the emergence of a new, potentially less benevolent global power. A lot of innocent people likely die in this scenario too.<p>The world is undoubtedly a safer place because the US does horrible things to bad people (and yes, at times to good people too). The fact that there is a single superpower that can and will defeat anyone, anywhere deters a lot of large-scale bad behavior -- the last 70 years since WWII have been some of the most peaceful in human history. Casualty counts from armed conflict measure in the thousands to tens of thousands; not the hundreds of thousands or millions that you&#x27;d see in a major war.<p>But that still doesn&#x27;t make what the US does in regards to surveillance right. Can there be world peace without a dominant military power to keep everyone in check? I don&#x27;t know, but we should at least try to find out.