Which, frankly, we should never engage in in the first place.  Our job isn't to build nations other than our own...but it becomes a hell of a lot easier to continue imperialism when it's disguised as "help."

The Middle East is far too unstable for us to maintain a foothold in.  That's what we use Israel as a mercenary state for, anyway.

Why not? Also, what foreign lands have we acquired through military force in the last 20, 30, 40 years+?

We aren't trying to maintain a foothold in the middle east so much as wanting to influence the region so that the trash doesn't make its way to our shores. You may also be surprised at how many nations invite and actually pay us to park in their backyard.

You should really look at the power structure, and demographic realities within those countries, before you present them as an authority on what is right and good for the people in those areas...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why not? Also, what foreign lands have we acquired through military force in the last 20, 30, 40 years+?

We aren't trying to maintain a foothold in the middle east so much as wanting to influence the region so that the trash doesn't make its way to our shores. You may also be surprised at how many nations invite and actually pay us to park in their backyard.

You should really look at the power structure, and demographic realities within those countries, before you present them as an authority on what is right and good for the people in those areas...

You mean countries like Germany, Japan, Australia, the Philippines and, diety help us, that hell hole Canada?!?!?! 

Yeah, terrible lot that.

-1 for ignorant comment.

Mikesez stands at -37.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You should really look at the power structure, and demographic realities within those countries, before you present them as an authority on what is right and good for the people in those areas...

You mean countries like Germany, Japan, Australia, the Philippines and, diety help us, that hell hole Canada?!?!?! 

Yeah, terrible lot that.

-1 for ignorant comment.

Mikesez stands at -37.

None of those listed countries pay us.
And we've long since removed our military bases from the Philippines.
We were discussing middle East countries, anyhow

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why not? Also, what foreign lands have we acquired through military force in the last 20, 30, 40 years+?

We aren't trying to maintain a foothold in the middle east so much as wanting to influence the region so that the trash doesn't make its way to our shores. You may also be surprised at how many nations invite and actually pay us to park in their backyard.

You should really look at the power structure, and demographic realities within those countries, before you present them as an authority on what is right and good for the people in those areas...

I've lived in those countries, on their economy, following their social norms, and interacting with their governments. I know exactly how and why we are in certain locations. Are you disagreeing with what I said? FYI, my statement is not limited to the M.E. Your issue, like many Americans, are you only know what the media within the United States tells you. You are so disconnected from the outside world by the protection bubble that you can't fully understand geopolitical positions and issues.

---

You mean countries like Germany, Japan, Australia, the Philippines and, diety help us, that hell hole Canada?!?!?! 

Yeah, terrible lot that.

-1 for ignorant comment.

Mikesez stands at -37.

None of those listed countries pay us.
And we've long since removed our military bases from the Philippines.
We were discussing middle East countries, anyhow

Hahaha. They absolutely pay. They pay for food, fuel, provide bases, housing, etc. FYI, we have never fully disengaged the Philippines. In fact, they want us to return to Subic Bay because of China. And since we are talking the M.E. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, and many others pay us to be in their backyard. How many of those do you believe have poor/frustrated demographics and social environments?

---

None of those listed countries pay us.
And we've long since removed our military bases from the Philippines.
We were discussing middle East countries, anyhow

Hahaha. They absolutely pay. They pay for food, fuel, provide bases, housing, etc. FYI, we have never fully disengaged the Philippines. In fact, they want us to return to Subic Bay because of China. And since we are talking the M.E. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, and many others pay us to be in their backyard. How many of those do you believe have poor/frustrated demographics and social environments?

None of those countries has what we would call civil rights or a free exchange of ideas.  Iraq is the only one in the group attempting free elections, but Iran calls a lot of the shots there these days.
The repression one would face in Kuwait or Qatar is subtle, while Bahrain and Saudi openly execute protestors.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Which, frankly, we should never engage in in the first place.  Our job isn't to build nations other than our own...but it becomes a hell of a lot easier to continue imperialism when it's disguised as "help."

The Middle East is far too unstable for us to maintain a foothold in.  That's what we use Israel as a mercenary state for, anyway.

Why not? Also, what foreign lands have we acquired through military force in the last 20, 30, 40 years+?

We aren't trying to maintain a foothold in the middle east so much as wanting to influence the region so that the trash doesn't make its way to our shores. You may also be surprised at how many nations invite and actually pay us to park in their backyard.

Our government learned long ago (during the Reagan years, especially) that it's a hell of a lot more effective to arm and point the weapon where we want it to go than to actively acquire through military force.

Just because we take on more of a shadow puppet master role doesn't mean we aren't in control of what happens in other nations.

---

Hahaha. They absolutely pay. They pay for food, fuel, provide bases, housing, etc. FYI, we have never fully disengaged the Philippines. In fact, they want us to return to Subic Bay because of China. And since we are talking the M.E. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, and many others pay us to be in their backyard. How many of those do you believe have poor/frustrated demographics and social environments?

None of those countries has what we would call civil rights or a free exchange of ideas.  Iraq is the only one in the group attempting free elections, but Iran calls a lot of the shots there these days.
The repression one would face in Kuwait or Qatar is subtle, while Bahrain and Saudi openly execute protestors.

No country on earth has the same civil rights or free exchange of ideas that the United States currently has. Anyways, it is a factor of zero in the discussion of the United States being invited and paid to have a presence in certain regions and countries.

---

Why not? Also, what foreign lands have we acquired through military force in the last 20, 30, 40 years+?

We aren't trying to maintain a foothold in the middle east so much as wanting to influence the region so that the trash doesn't make its way to our shores. You may also be surprised at how many nations invite and actually pay us to park in their backyard.

Our government learned long ago (during the Reagan years, especially) that it's a hell of a lot more effective to arm and point the weapon where we want it to go than to actively acquire through military force.

Just because we take on more of a shadow puppet master role doesn't mean we aren't in control of what happens in other nations.

Yes, we attempt to influence and reinforce democracy in an effort to block eastern block like socialism/dictatorships and this has been going since inception. But this superpower does not need to use military force as a primary source of that influence. Let economics do the talking. That is the difference between imperialism, occupation or whatever term you wish to use, and the influence I speak of. Believe it or not, there is a difference between influence and absolute control.

Some may wish to just ignore the global geopolitical climate but eventually the bad will overflow and directly impact your safehaven in the United States. I wonder how many Asian Pacific countries feel about the fact they ignored their regions geopolitical goings on now that the trash is washing over their sovereign shores?

---

None of those countries has what we would call civil rights or a free exchange of ideas.  Iraq is the only one in the group attempting free elections, but Iran calls a lot of the shots there these days.
The repression one would face in Kuwait or Qatar is subtle, while Bahrain and Saudi openly execute protestors.

No country on earth has the same civil rights or free exchange of ideas that the United States currently has. Anyways, it is a factor of zero in the discussion of the United States being invited and paid to have a presence in certain regions and countries.

It is a factor.
It's one thing to defensively prop up a government that rules with the consent of the governed (Latvia, for instance, or South Korea).
It's another to give weapons and refueling sorties to support a government that represses its own people, and does not have their consent (Saudi Arabia), in its efforts to extend it hegemony and the repression that goes along with it to a neighboring country (Yemen).

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No country on earth has the same civil rights or free exchange of ideas that the United States currently has. Anyways, it is a factor of zero in the discussion of the United States being invited and paid to have a presence in certain regions and countries.

It is a factor.
It's one thing to defensively prop up a government that rules with the consent of the governed (Latvia, for instance, or South Korea).
It's another to give weapons and refueling sorties to support a government that represses its own people, and does not have their consent (Saudi Arabia), in its efforts to extend it hegemony and the repression that goes along with it to a neighboring country (Yemen).

Are you just responding to be conflictual, or are you going to make a point eventually? Are you suggesting regime change for all countries not like the United States? From my point of view, you are just reinforcing that regardless of government or demographics, the US is invited and paid to stabilize a region or offer protection from the one stirring the pot. In this situation, it's Iran's radical religious leadership.

You may want to research the Saudi - Yemen relationship and how they got to where it is now. Your comments aren't in line with the reality of the situation.

Anyways, how about Iran attacking them tankers? Ya'll still believing the tail is wagging the dog or coming back to reality?

---

No country on earth has the same civil rights or free exchange of ideas that the United States currently has. Anyways, it is a factor of zero in the discussion of the United States being invited and paid to have a presence in certain regions and countries.

It is a factor.
It's one thing to defensively prop up a government that rules with the consent of the governed (Latvia, for instance, or South Korea).
It's another to give weapons and refueling sorties to support a government that represses its own people, and does not have their consent (Saudi Arabia), in its efforts to extend it hegemony and the repression that goes along with it to a neighboring country (Yemen).

We don't "give" weapons to Saudi Arabia, they buy them with the third largest military budget in the world.

I guess you would prefer we walk away from the Saudis and let China, an even more oppressive and murdering country, take on the lucrative role of supplying the Saudis military needs while staking their claim as the most influential power in the region.

That would really work out well for the free world.

---

It's probably 99% certain that Iran did it.  The evidence released to the public tells part of the story.  People that naively think that "grainy video" released to the public is the only evidence don't know the capabilities of the intelligence community, specifically the military.  That's actually a good thing.

What does Iran have to gain?  This is most likely in response to the sanctions placed on the country as well as the U.S. voiding the nuclear "treaty" that was put in place by the prior administration.  They won't get far with this and they under-estimate the capabilities of other nations.  They have weapons, specifically certain submarines that they don't know how to operate that could be very dangerous in the area.

The flag that the tankers fly is really of no significance.  Most of the ships that deliver goods not only to the U.S. but other countries fly under various country's flags.  Even the cruise ships that operate out of our ports are often flagged and commanded by foreign people/countries.  The last couple of cruises that my wife and I took out of Jacksonville and Miami were flagged by a different country and commanded by an Italian captain.

The area has been a dangerous place for many years.  I know that when I sailed through those waters (roughly 5 times) on a naval warship we were always on high alert.  I flew into Bahrain which is one of our "allies" in the region, yet precautions were in place for our protection.  We were pretty much limited to our hotel and the base that we have there.

One thing to ponder though.  Notice how this incident has disappeared from the latest news?  Why is that?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It is a factor.
It's one thing to defensively prop up a government that rules with the consent of the governed (Latvia, for instance, or South Korea).
It's another to give weapons and refueling sorties to support a government that represses its own people, and does not have their consent (Saudi Arabia), in its efforts to extend it hegemony and the repression that goes along with it to a neighboring country (Yemen).

Are you just responding to be conflictual, or are you going to make a point eventually? Are you suggesting regime change for all countries not like the United States? From my point of view, you are just reinforcing that regardless of government or demographics, the US is invited and paid to stabilize a region or offer protection from the one stirring the pot. In this situation, it's Iran's radical religious leadership.

You may want to research the Saudi - Yemen relationship and how they got to where it is now. Your comments aren't in line with the reality of the situation.

Anyways, how about Iran attacking them tankers? Ya'll still believing the tail is wagging the dog or coming back to reality?

You're an unstable thinker.
I say that we should not do the bidding of the Saudis,  as the Saudis are not a good government.
You question if I want regime change, not just for the Saudis, but every country that's not exactly like us. I don't know where you got that from.
Just because I criticize a government, does not mean that I want to see my government violently end that other government.

Before 1979, we cooperated with both Iran and Saudi, even though both were terrible, and our cooperation allowed both governments to be more terrible than they would have been otherwise.

After 1979, the Iranians violently shook us off, and became a different kind of terrible.

Now, instead of simply doing business with the Saudis, we came to view them more and more as allies, even though they never stopped being terrible.

I am only advocating leaving the whole Persian gulf region alone to fight its own battles.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Are you just responding to be conflictual, or are you going to make a point eventually? Are you suggesting regime change for all countries not like the United States? From my point of view, you are just reinforcing that regardless of government or demographics, the US is invited and paid to stabilize a region or offer protection from the one stirring the pot. In this situation, it's Iran's radical religious leadership.

You may want to research the Saudi - Yemen relationship and how they got to where it is now. Your comments aren't in line with the reality of the situation.

Anyways, how about Iran attacking them tankers? Ya'll still believing the tail is wagging the dog or coming back to reality?

You're an unstable thinker.
I say that we should not do the bidding of the Saudis,  as the Saudis are not a good government.
You question if I want regime change, not just for the Saudis, but every country that's not exactly like us. I don't know where you got that from.
Just because I criticize a government, does not mean that I want to see my government violently end that other government.

Before 1979, we cooperated with both Iran and Saudi, even though both were terrible, and our cooperation allowed both governments to be more terrible than they would have been otherwise.

After 1979, the Iranians violently shook us off, and became a different kind of terrible.

Now, instead of simply doing business with the Saudis, we came to view them more and more as allies, even though they never stopped being terrible.

I am only advocating leaving the whole Persian gulf region alone to fight its own battles.

I'm only providing input based on what you type. If it comes off as unstable, it is because you criticize...something. Then you fail to make a point.

You could have just typed your last sentence as everything else is opinionated inaccuracies.

So, you advocate for isolationism? Yeah, having no foreign policy and retreating into a bubble works well. Some might say the topic of this thread was exacerbated by a lack of M.E. foreign policy from the last administration.

---

You're an unstable thinker.
I say that we should not do the bidding of the Saudis,  as the Saudis are not a good government.
You question if I want regime change, not just for the Saudis, but every country that's not exactly like us. I don't know where you got that from.
Just because I criticize a government, does not mean that I want to see my government violently end that other government.

Before 1979, we cooperated with both Iran and Saudi, even though both were terrible, and our cooperation allowed both governments to be more terrible than they would have been otherwise.

After 1979, the Iranians violently shook us off, and became a different kind of terrible.

Now, instead of simply doing business with the Saudis, we came to view them more and more as allies, even though they never stopped being terrible.

I am only advocating leaving the whole Persian gulf region alone to fight its own battles.

I'm only providing input based on what you type. If it comes off as unstable, it is because you criticize...something. Then you fail to make a point.

You could have just typed your last sentence as everything else is opinionated inaccuracies.

So, you advocate for isolationism? Yeah, having no foreign policy and retreating into a bubble works well. Some might say the topic of this thread was exacerbated by a lack of M.E. foreign policy from the last administration.

Again with the instability.
No, I don't advocate for isolationism.
The US must be involved in world affairs. 
However, we can take a step back in this particular region at this particular time.
This is one of the few parts of the world where a good civil War will improve the average person's chance of having a meaningful and positive influence on how he is governed.
We should stop propping up the dictators and see what happens.
The US should intervene only to prevent massacres, capture specific high-value fugitives, or stop genocides, when possible.
If you ignore his heavy use of assassin drones, Obama eventually got this policy right. But he probably did it by accident.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm only providing input based on what you type. If it comes off as unstable, it is because you criticize...something. Then you fail to make a point.

You could have just typed your last sentence as everything else is opinionated inaccuracies.

So, you advocate for isolationism? Yeah, having no foreign policy and retreating into a bubble works well. Some might say the topic of this thread was exacerbated by a lack of M.E. foreign policy from the last administration.

Again with the instability.
No, I don't advocate for isolationism.
The US must be involved in world affairs. 
However, we can take a step back in this particular region at this particular time.
This is one of the few parts of the world where a good civil War will improve the average person's chance of having a meaningful and positive influence on how he is governed.
We should stop propping up the dictators and see what happens.
The US should intervene only to prevent massacres, capture specific high-value fugitives, or stop genocides, when possible.
If you ignore his heavy use of assassin drones, Obama eventually got this policy right. But he probably did it by accident.

You sound really confused.

Regime change to isolationism to civil war is good to the US supports dictators. Now reactionary is preferred over being proactive. And your right back to the belief that having no workable foreign policy works.

Received any post cards from Syria or Yemen lately that are praising civil war? How about all those dictators the US props up? The US just loves a good dictator...HANGING around.

---

Again with the instability.
No, I don't advocate for isolationism.
The US must be involved in world affairs. 
However, we can take a step back in this particular region at this particular time.
This is one of the few parts of the world where a good civil War will improve the average person's chance of having a meaningful and positive influence on how he is governed.
We should stop propping up the dictators and see what happens.
The US should intervene only to prevent massacres, capture specific high-value fugitives, or stop genocides, when possible.
If you ignore his heavy use of assassin drones, Obama eventually got this policy right. But he probably did it by accident.

You sound really confused.

Regime change to isolationism to civil war is good to the US supports dictators. Now reactionary is preferred over being proactive. And your right back to the belief that having no workable foreign policy works.

Received any post cards from Syria or Yemen lately that are praising civil war? How about all those dictators the US props up? The US just loves a good dictator...HANGING around.

You keep hearing stuff I am not saying.
Isolationism would be leaving Japan and Poland to their own devices. That would be bad. China and Japan might fight a pointless war, while Russia would devour Poland again.
But, leaving Saudi to its own devices would be good. Whatever emerges from the dust there will have more legitimacy than what's there now.
I try to decide case by case.

As far as being "reactionary" vs "proactive," this is a false dichotomy.  All countries should be proactive in terms of having men and materials and plans in place for most foreseeable circumstances - even in a threatening posture. But starting a war is indefensible.  Finish the war. Don't start it.

As for the current civil wars, they are both proxy battles between greater powers, and these greater powers are paying little heed to what the people actually native to Yemen and Syria want.  Russia and Iran are both participating solely to maintain these countries as bases to launch future attacks against other enemies.  Civil wars are always bad.  But they are sometimes the least bad thing.  

As for regime change, it should be initiated from within the given country.  When we jump in and make the first move, it ends poorly.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You sound really confused.

Regime change to isolationism to civil war is good to the US supports dictators. Now reactionary is preferred over being proactive. And your right back to the belief that having no workable foreign policy works.

Received any post cards from Syria or Yemen lately that are praising civil war? How about all those dictators the US props up? The US just loves a good dictator...HANGING around.

You keep hearing stuff I am not saying.
Isolationism would be leaving Japan and Poland to their own devices. That would be bad. China and Japan might fight a pointless war, while Russia would devour Poland again.
But, leaving Saudi to its own devices would be good. Whatever emerges from the dust there will have more legitimacy than what's there now.
I try to decide case by case.

As far as being "reactionary" vs "proactive," this is a false dichotomy.  All countries should be proactive in terms of having men and materials and plans in place for most foreseeable circumstances - even in a threatening posture. But starting a war is indefensible.  Finish the war. Don't start it.

As for the current civil wars, they are both proxy battles between greater powers, and these greater powers are paying little heed to what the people actually native to Yemen and Syria want.  Russia and Iran are both participating solely to maintain these countries as bases to launch future attacks against other enemies.  Civil wars are always bad.  But they are sometimes the least bad thing.  

As for regime change, it should be initiated from within the given country.  When we jump in and make the first move, it ends poorly.

Leaving Saudi to it's own devices means they would become under the influence of countries like China and Russia.

Like I said before, they are the third largest military spender in the world. Abandoning the Saudis would give their 60+ million dollar spending budget to the Chinese or Russians which would draw them under their influence.

The Chinese and Russians are known for murdering millions of their own people. Leaving the Saudis under their influence will not decrease their humanitarian record, rather they would be supported by countries that proactively support repression on an industrial scale.

Leaving the Saudis won't help their humanitarian record, they would actually find support and influence from the two countries who are masters of murder and repression of their people.

Instead of hurting the Saudis, they would just still get their military supplies and also learn the art of repression from the two countries who have mastered it.

---

You keep hearing stuff I am not saying.
Isolationism would be leaving Japan and Poland to their own devices. That would be bad. China and Japan might fight a pointless war, while Russia would devour Poland again.
But, leaving Saudi to its own devices would be good. Whatever emerges from the dust there will have more legitimacy than what's there now.
I try to decide case by case.

As far as being "reactionary" vs "proactive," this is a false dichotomy.  All countries should be proactive in terms of having men and materials and plans in place for most foreseeable circumstances - even in a threatening posture. But starting a war is indefensible.  Finish the war. Don't start it.

As for the current civil wars, they are both proxy battles between greater powers, and these greater powers are paying little heed to what the people actually native to Yemen and Syria want.  Russia and Iran are both participating solely to maintain these countries as bases to launch future attacks against other enemies.  Civil wars are always bad.  But they are sometimes the least bad thing.  

As for regime change, it should be initiated from within the given country.  When we jump in and make the first move, it ends poorly.

Leaving Saudi to it's own devices means they would become under the influence of countries like China and Russia.

Like I said before, they are the third largest military spender in the world. Abandoning the Saudis would give their 60+ million dollar spending budget to the Chinese or Russians which would draw them under their influence.

The Chinese and Russians are known for murdering millions of their own people. Leaving the Saudis under their influence will not decrease their humanitarian record, rather they would be supported by countries that proactively support repression on an industrial scale.

Leaving the Saudis won't help their humanitarian record, they would actually find support and influence from the two countries who are masters of murder and repression of their people.

Instead of hurting the Saudis, they would just still get their military supplies and also learn the art of repression from the two countries who have mastered it.

I just don't see it that way.
I think if we stop propping up that regime, Iran will conquer some of their territory, and then some clan or group of clans will remove the house of Saud from power within a few years.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.