(06-19-2019, 11:30 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(06-19-2019, 10:45 PM)B2hibry Wrote: 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?

---