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.

Oh, I see what you are saying but you contradict what you've said previously in each response. The responses read like a politician trying to not cross the line of no return. There is also an utopia feel.

I'm not sure how interested you'd be, and this is not a dig so much as a push for you to understand, but you should take a course in M.E. studies that includes past and current events. You would be shocked how far off your thoughts are. For me, I'm having a hard time following you because I was forced to go to M.E. studies, as well as study military strategies and tactics based on hundreds of years of conflict and other scenarios. The geopolitical environment has changed drastically and sitting back most times opens the pandoras box of no return.

So in the case of Iran, you'd like us to step back even though their actions have global implications? What is your line for "reaction"? Influencing traffic in international waters, bombing 4 ships, bombing oil pipelines, shooting down drones in international airspace, taking control of a sovereign countries lands, producing nuclear weapons for the sole reason of eliminating a neighboring country, taking over a soveriegn countries ports for economic gain, etc?

---

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.

Oh, I see what you are saying but you contradict what you've said previously in each response. The responses read like a politician trying to not cross the line of no return. There is also an utopia feel.

I'm not sure how interested you'd be, and this is not a dig so much as a push for you to understand, but you should take a course in M.E. studies that includes past and current events. You would be shocked how far off your thoughts are. For me, I'm having a hard time following you because I was forced to go to M.E. studies, as well as study military strategies and tactics based on hundreds of years of conflict and other scenarios. The geopolitical environment has changed drastically and sitting back most times opens the pandoras box of no return.

So in the case of Iran, you'd like us to step back even though their actions have global implications? What is your line for "reaction"? Influencing traffic in international waters, bombing 4 ships, bombing oil pipelines, shooting down drones in international airspace, taking control of a sovereign countries lands, producing nuclear weapons for the sole reason of eliminating a neighboring country, taking over a soveriegn countries ports for economic gain, etc?

One shouldn't presume that a person with different conclusions has been apprised of fewer facts.

The House of Saud came to power near Riyadh by allying itself with iconoclastic, ascetic Imams who followed bin Wahab in the late 18th century.

However, the territory they controlled had neither oil, nor access to the sea, nor holy sites.

All of these things were controlled by the Ottomans.  There was another similarly situated, neighboring desert tribe called the Rashidun at that time.  As Ottoman control collapsed during WWI, the Saudis outmaneuvered all the other Arab players to get most of the territory they control today.  

Specifically, the oil rich territory that they call Sharqiyya was added.  The people of this territory were Shia, and remain so.  They are outrageously repressed.  

Saudi has in turn propped up friendly, Sunni rulers in majority Shia Bahrain.  This country is also terribly repressed. 

Now, the Shia are not necessarily good guys, historically.  But neither are the Saudis.  

What history am I missing?

---

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

Oh, I see what you are saying but you contradict what you've said previously in each response. The responses read like a politician trying to not cross the line of no return. There is also an utopia feel.

I'm not sure how interested you'd be, and this is not a dig so much as a push for you to understand, but you should take a course in M.E. studies that includes past and current events. You would be shocked how far off your thoughts are. For me, I'm having a hard time following you because I was forced to go to M.E. studies, as well as study military strategies and tactics based on hundreds of years of conflict and other scenarios. The geopolitical environment has changed drastically and sitting back most times opens the pandoras box of no return.

So in the case of Iran, you'd like us to step back even though their actions have global implications? What is your line for "reaction"? Influencing traffic in international waters, bombing 4 ships, bombing oil pipelines, shooting down drones in international airspace, taking control of a sovereign countries lands, producing nuclear weapons for the sole reason of eliminating a neighboring country, taking over a soveriegn countries ports for economic gain, etc?

One shouldn't presume that a person with different conclusions has been apprised of fewer facts.

The House of Saud came to power near Riyadh by allying itself with iconoclastic, ascetic Imams who followed bin Wahab in the late 18th century.

However, the territory they controlled had neither oil, nor access to the sea, nor holy sites.

All of these things were controlled by the Ottomans.  There was another similarly situated, neighboring desert tribe called the Rashidun at that time.  As Ottoman control collapsed during WWI, the Saudis outmaneuvered all the other Arab players to get most of the territory they control today.  


Now, the Shia are not necessarily good guys, historically.  But neither are the Saudis.  

What history am I missing?

I have assumed nothing. It is what you put to paper so to speak.

Good job Mr. Google. Going to need you to quote from multiple scholarly sources. LOL Now go search for relevant information more closely related to this century and the topic. Not surprising, you still can't clarify your position on the topic. Running out of stamina for those backflips?

---

One shouldn't presume that a person with different conclusions has been apprised of fewer facts.

The House of Saud came to power near Riyadh by allying itself with iconoclastic, ascetic Imams who followed bin Wahab in the late 18th century.

However, the territory they controlled had neither oil, nor access to the sea, nor holy sites.

All of these things were controlled by the Ottomans.  There was another similarly situated, neighboring desert tribe called the Rashidun at that time.  As Ottoman control collapsed during WWI, the Saudis outmaneuvered all the other Arab players to get most of the territory they control today.  


Now, the Shia are not necessarily good guys, historically.  But neither are the Saudis.  

What history am I missing?

I have assumed nothing. It is what you put to paper so to speak.

Good job Mr. Google. Going to need you to quote from multiple scholarly sources. LOL Now go search for relevant information more closely related to this century and the topic. Not surprising, you still can't clarify your position on the topic. Running out of stamina for those backflips?

I don't see you quoting from multiple scholarly sources.

I'm not trying to clarify my position.
I'm not the President, and even if I was I would play it a bit closer to the chest then giving out a red line in advance.
But I am saying that the US needs to think more deeply than simply doing whatever the Saudis and Emiratis want us to do.
And I am saying that Iran is a bit more rational and less evil than the propaganda artists in the right-wing of this country would have us believe.
We probably shouldn't have torn up that nuclear agreement, because they were not violating it. Even if they put limpet mines on a few oil tankers and shot down one of our drones, we should consider if that is understandable in light of how we shredded up their agreement with us (and with Europe) for no good reason.

---

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

I have assumed nothing. It is what you put to paper so to speak.

Good job Mr. Google. Going to need you to quote from multiple scholarly sources. LOL Now go search for relevant information more closely related to this century and the topic. Not surprising, you still can't clarify your position on the topic. Running out of stamina for those backflips?

I don't see you quoting from multiple scholarly sources.

I'm not trying to clarify my position.
I'm not the President, and even if I was I would play it a bit closer to the chest then giving out a red line in advance.
But I am saying that the US needs to think more deeply than simply doing whatever the Saudis and Emiratis want us to do.
And I am saying that Iran is a bit more rational and less evil than the propaganda artists in the right-wing of this country would have us believe.
We probably shouldn't have torn up that nuclear agreement, because they were not violating it. Even if they put limpet mines on a few oil tankers and shot down one of our drones, we should consider if that is understandable in light of how we shredded up their agreement with us (and with Europe) for no good reason.

U.S. = Good
Iran = Bad

Are you familiar with Mark Twain?

---

I don't see you quoting from multiple scholarly sources.

I'm not trying to clarify my position.
I'm not the President, and even if I was I would play it a bit closer to the chest then giving out a red line in advance.
But I am saying that the US needs to think more deeply than simply doing whatever the Saudis and Emiratis want us to do.
And I am saying that Iran is a bit more rational and less evil than the propaganda artists in the right-wing of this country would have us believe.
We probably shouldn't have torn up that nuclear agreement, because they were not violating it. Even if they put limpet mines on a few oil tankers and shot down one of our drones, we should consider if that is understandable in light of how we shredded up their agreement with us (and with Europe) for no good reason.

U.S. = Good
Iran = Bad

Are you familiar with Mark Twain?

Does the word "jingo" mean anything to you?

---

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

U.S. = Good
Iran = Bad

Are you familiar with Mark Twain?

Does the word "jingo" mean anything to you?

Isn't that the tower of blocks game where all your arguments eventually teeter and collapse under their own weight?

---

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

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.

The scenario you are suggesting will put the entire middle east in political jihad resulting in hundreds of thousands or even millions of deaths like Syria, but on a larger scale.

And when that happens, who do you think the UN will expect to send in tens of thousands of troops to resolve this humanitarian crisis?

---

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.

The scenario you are suggesting will put the entire middle east in political jihad resulting in hundreds of thousands or even millions of deaths like Syria, but on a larger scale.

And when that happens, who do you think the UN will expect to send in tens of thousands of troops to resolve this humanitarian crisis?

Chaos would certainly ensue.  
I just doubt Russia or China would involve themselves.  They have no footprint over there, nothing to build on.
Whoever conquers the wells will want the oil to flow.
Saddam Hussein's army briefly overran this part of Saudi Arabia in 1991, and they might still be there if we hadn't decided to intervene.  Iran might have butted in by now in that alternate history, though.
The only possible bad outcome for NATO countries is one army having a greater share of world oil production than Saudi or Iraq have today.  Saddam certainly intended to gain that kind of near monopoly for himself, but, there were lighter and more subtle ways to prevent all of that, compared to the course we chose in 1991.  We could have let it play out a little longer.  Saddam was overextending.

---

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

The scenario you are suggesting will put the entire middle east in political jihad resulting in hundreds of thousands or even millions of deaths like Syria, but on a larger scale.

And when that happens, who do you think the UN will expect to send in tens of thousands of troops to resolve this humanitarian crisis?

Chaos would certainly ensue.  
I just doubt Russia or China would involve themselves.  They have no footprint over there, nothing to build on.
Whoever conquers the wells will want the oil to flow.
Saddam Hussein's army briefly overran this part of Saudi Arabia in 1991, and they might still be there if we hadn't decided to intervene.  Iran might have butted in by now in that alternate history, though.
The only possible bad outcome for NATO countries is one army having a greater share of world oil production than Saudi or Iraq have today.  Saddam certainly intended to gain that kind of near monopoly for himself, but, there were lighter and more subtle ways to prevent all of that, compared to the course we chose in 1991.  We could have let it play out a little longer.  Saddam was overextending.

Russia and China have huge interest in the region. It has some of the largest oil reserves in the world. You don't need to have a footprint when the door is left wide open for you.

Do you not remember Russia annexing part of the Ukraine just to get their oil reserves? You really don't think they would take a keen interest in expanding their influence in the region? They're already in Syria.

They would be more than happy to expand their influence to Saudi Arabia and fulfill the all needs of their 60+billion dollar military budget and be the favored trading partner for all that oil.

---

It's not about oil.  It never has been and certainly isn't today.  Liberals like to spread that false information that it's all about the "oil flowing".  If it was ever about "oil" I would think that we would be more involved with Venezuela rather than the middle east.

---

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

It's not about oil.  It never has been and certainly isn't today.  Liberals like to spread that false information that it's all about the "oil flowing".  If it was ever about "oil" I would think that we would be more involved with Venezuela rather than the middle east.

It may not be all about oil for us considering we are the largest producer in the world right now.

Oil would definitely be a huge interest to a couple of countries vying to become the next superpower.

---

It's not entirely about oil.
But if the area had no oil, we would treat it the same way we treated Darfur, or Rwanda.

---

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

Chaos would certainly ensue.  
I just doubt Russia or China would involve themselves.  They have no footprint over there, nothing to build on.
Whoever conquers the wells will want the oil to flow.
Saddam Hussein's army briefly overran this part of Saudi Arabia in 1991, and they might still be there if we hadn't decided to intervene.  Iran might have butted in by now in that alternate history, though.
The only possible bad outcome for NATO countries is one army having a greater share of world oil production than Saudi or Iraq have today.  Saddam certainly intended to gain that kind of near monopoly for himself, but, there were lighter and more subtle ways to prevent all of that, compared to the course we chose in 1991.  We could have let it play out a little longer.  Saddam was overextending.

Russia and China have huge interest in the region. It has some of the largest oil reserves in the world. You don't need to have a footprint when the door is left wide open for you.

Do you not remember Russia annexing part of the Ukraine just to get their oil reserves? You really don't think they would take a keen interest in expanding their influence in the region? They're already in Syria.

They would be more than happy to expand their influence to Saudi Arabia and fulfill the all needs of their 60+billion dollar military budget and be the favored trading partner for all that oil.

Russia annexed part of Ukraine because historically it was part of Russia. The people there spoke Russian rather than Ukrainian. The Shale gas was probably a necessary ingredient of their interest, but it wasn't the only ingredient.  
Russia has parked its Navy at Sevastopol (in Crimea) for over a century. And they've been parked at Tartus (Syria) for a long time as well.
The interest in maintaining is navy bases is probably stronger than the interest in getting a little more Shale gas.

---

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

Russia and China have huge interest in the region. It has some of the largest oil reserves in the world. You don't need to have a footprint when the door is left wide open for you.

Do you not remember Russia annexing part of the Ukraine just to get their oil reserves? You really don't think they would take a keen interest in expanding their influence in the region? They're already in Syria.

They would be more than happy to expand their influence to Saudi Arabia and fulfill the all needs of their 60+billion dollar military budget and be the favored trading partner for all that oil.

Russia annexed part of Ukraine because historically it was part of Russia. The people there spoke Russian rather than Ukrainian. The Shale gas was probably a necessary ingredient of their interest, but it wasn't the only ingredient.  
Russia has parked its Navy at Sevastopol (in Crimea) for over a century. And they've been parked at Tartus (Syria) for a long time as well.
The interest in maintaining is navy bases is probably stronger than the interest in getting a little more Shale gas.

There are a whole bunch of sovereign countries that speak Russian and were once part of Russia. Does Russia have the right to annex them too? Does Britain have the right to annex India because it historically was part of the British empire and most of them speak English? Both empires seized control over these lands around the same time.

The Ukraine and Russia already had a treaty allowing the Russian Black Sea fleet to be based in Sevastopol.

Why would they need to annex if they already had access? Because their interest wasn't the port, it's in what's underground and the oil rights that extend out into the Black Sea.

---

Russia annexed part of Ukraine because historically it was part of Russia. The people there spoke Russian rather than Ukrainian. The Shale gas was probably a necessary ingredient of their interest, but it wasn't the only ingredient.  
Russia has parked its Navy at Sevastopol (in Crimea) for over a century. And they've been parked at Tartus (Syria) for a long time as well.
The interest in maintaining is navy bases is probably stronger than the interest in getting a little more Shale gas.

There are a whole bunch of sovereign countries that speak Russian and were once part of Russia. Does Russia have the right to annex them too? Does Britain have the right to annex India because it historically was part of the British empire and most of them speak English? Both empires seized control over these lands around the same time.

The Ukraine and Russia already had a treaty allowing the Russian Black Sea fleet to be based in Sevastopol.

Why would they need to annex if they already had access? Because their interest wasn't the port, it's in what's underground and the oil rights that extend out into the Black Sea.

The entire Ukraine crisis was precipitated by Ukraine threatening to join the European Union and NATO.
Russia found paying an EU/NATO country for military access to a port that they consider to be their own anyway to be totally unacceptable, similar to how the Packers would not trade Brett Favre within their own division.

---

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

There are a whole bunch of sovereign countries that speak Russian and were once part of Russia. Does Russia have the right to annex them too? Does Britain have the right to annex India because it historically was part of the British empire and most of them speak English? Both empires seized control over these lands around the same time.

The Ukraine and Russia already had a treaty allowing the Russian Black Sea fleet to be based in Sevastopol.

Why would they need to annex if they already had access? Because their interest wasn't the port, it's in what's underground and the oil rights that extend out into the Black Sea.

The entire Ukraine crisis was precipitated by Ukraine threatening to join the European Union and NATO.
Russia found paying an EU/NATO country for military access to a port that they consider to be their own anyway to be totally unacceptable, similar to how the Packers would not trade Brett Favre within their own division.

A sovereign nation making it's own treaties?

The nerve of them.

---

By the way, the Russians signed a treaty with the Ukraine in 1997 to respect the borders. So they had no rightful claim to the Crimean.

---

By the way, the Russians signed a treaty with the Ukraine in 1997 to respect the borders. So they had no rightful claim to the Crimean.

Oh I didn't say it was rightful.
I did say why they felt justified in doing it.
They're not the first country to suddenly and unilaterally break a treaty with their neighbors and they won't be the last.
I do think we have made a bigger deal out of it than it really is.

---

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

By the way, the Russians signed a treaty with the Ukraine in 1997 to respect the borders. So they had no rightful claim to the Crimean.

Oh I didn't say it was rightful.
I did say why they felt justified in doing it.
They're not the first country to suddenly and unilaterally break a treaty with their neighbors and they won't be the last.
I do think we have made a bigger deal out of it than it really is.

Your whole argument is based on justifying it when there is no justification.

The fact of the matter is the UN still doesn't recognize Russia's claim on the Crimean. They see it as a hostile occupation of another sovereign nation. Basically a land grab for 80% of the energy resources of a soverign nation with which Russia had signed a "Friendship Treaty" agreeing to the boarders in 1997.

---