(06-19-2019, 07:17 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(06-19-2019, 07:05 PM)B2hibry Wrote: 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.

---