The pro-interventionist "argument"

[EstimatedProphet]

apparently is "Hindsight is 20/20"
On my way back to the office today (I went with a RWinger and a kid that reads Noam Chomsky) we got into American foreign policy, and I made the point that 1) if our foreign policy is to meddle in foreign countries to make situations that are best for our business, the best we can hope for is that half of the time we will make countries pro-US (and less likely to try and terrorize us or overthrow our enemies), according to the law of averages, and that if we want countries to be pro-US, we should take a different approach that includes their concerns; and 2) we have repeatedly made situations around the world that have turned around and bit us; and 3) we have repeatedly around the world acted to support dictators over legitimate governments because we wanted dictators that we could control (think Chile).
All this was supposedly countered with "Hindsight is 20/20". Apparently, how could we have known that things wouldn't work out?
I don't know about you, but it seems to me that if you repeatedly drop a brick on your foot, you learn after a while it hurts. We've been doing this pretty continuously since WWII. After a while it's no longer hindsight to know ahead of time that if we overthrow a popular and equitable government, it's citizens might get mad at us.

[EstimatedProphet]

1. Also, after exploring the ideas of Leo Strauss

who has been the originator of a lot of the NeoCon "ideas", I can begin to see how dismissing the results of our foreign policy so offhandedly could be attractive. Straussian philosophy is by nature so arrogant, so conceited, so self-absorbed, that it might actually begin to lead someone to make flippant comments that effectively mean "Oops! We messed up this time, but that's OK" because the egomania at the core of Straussian philosophy makes for automatic self-justification.