I think the "world police" argument is self-defeating.

First, nobody - even the most ardent interventionist - has ever asserted that the US should send its military to (some godforsaken shithole (GSFH)) because "we're the World Police!".
Suggesting such is prima facie untrue. The only people that even use the term are ironically usually the political left who, if they had their druthers, WOULD enable just such a thing likely under UN auspices. So it's not even the "world police" thing that bothers them, it's that we're pursuing our own interests, because they're presumably too stupid to recognize that every other state on the planet is doing the same thing to the best of their ability. So their real argument isn't that we're acting like "world police" so much as a basic argument against our own success....and that devolves, folks, to simple self-loathing.

US involvement in GFSHs is based on US interests, full stop. Setting aside the public pap of WMDs, it's clear that we went to war in Iraq to protect OIL, because after air, and water, and food, oil's pretty much the most fucking important substance on the planet.

Now, we can argue priorities, cost/benefit, direct self-interests vs enlightened longterm self interest, etc all day long. I might even agree with you on some points, despite our likely opposite political dogma.

But the crux of geopolitics is that EITHER:
- you pursue naked Realpolitik, and act ONLY in your self-interest, or
- you pursue a humanitarian policy of trying to "do good" where you can.

What the naive don't seem to understand is that you don't get to "not play". It's not a choice. If millions are being slaughtered in Rwanda, action OR INACTION is making a statement about US interests, values, and cost/benefit calculations, upon which then other states will plan their expectations about our behavior.

And FWIW, the second policy pole listed above? It's far, far more blood and treasure, intervention, and judgemental side-picking, 'warmongering scumbaggery' than the former.

Basically: grow the fuck up. The world's more complicated than you apparently understand.

As a sense of scale:

The US public spent $7.4 billion on HALLOWEEN in 2013, including $350 million for PET COSTUMES. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/wait-americans-spend-how-much-on-halloween/381631/)

Next Friday, on "Black Friday" US consumers will spend ~$40 billion on stuff that they & others don't need, but (mostly) want.

If they put their flag in space, doesn't that mean they own it?

Since Harvard students apparently need it put simply:
"Is it actually your money?"
"No?"
"Then shut the fuck up."

Yes, because two wrongs don't make a right. Or did your parents not teach you that?

If you punch me, does that mean I can punch your sister? Does that make it "ok"?

First, it's astonishingly pedantic to lecture someone on being "obtuse", and then go into the 'there is no such thing as race' bullshit. We all know what we are talking about, and if you don't, then you're the one being obtuse.

Secondly, isn't it fairly racist to imply that mono ethnic cities aren't "interesting, creative and vigorous"? That's pretty superficial.

Finally, you may have a delightful postmodern hipster view of ports, but most of them across history have been dangerous places that decent people avoided, for good reason.

What they did was swap the "Free" button for a "Get" button.

Why is it that, in 2014, people STILL get this shit backwards?

When you swap one thing FOR some other thing, the other thing is what you have in the end, not the one thing.

Jesus Christ...

Yes.

It's called a 'scoped high-powered rifle in the hands of tens of thousands of citizens.

Apply to political leaders until resistance to citizens seizing (reclaiming their stolen) assets stops.

Strat

No, they really didn't... no legal grounds anyway...

Of course, war isn't about law, no matter how much people like to say it is... The reality is that the winners decide what happens, no more or less...

...because that's when everyone wants to travel. Telling me to travel when I don't want to travel ain't a solution.

Hey buddy! Just ruin your holiday and you'll easily avoid the traffic!

Why don't I just not celebrate it at all.

Is this what we can expect from big data? Spend another day with your annoying family consuming the entire weekend, work more hours, or take half the work day off?

Here's a better way. Stab yourself in the neck, then you can take an ambulance right through any traffic that stands in your way. Your family will meet you at the hospital with a slice of turkey.

Here's another idea. Just celebrate thanksgiving two weeks later. You can avoid everything.

Thanks for the help, oh great and wise swammy-g.

I think you're generally right about the subject, you've however completely confused "libertarians" with "liberals".

It might sound surprising, but there are people who eat both turkey and ham on Thanksgiving. Or even meatballs, salmon and roast beef.

Shocking, I know, that people can eat more than one thing on any given day.