Trump trying to pull out of Syria, and reduce presence in Afghanistan

[CharlesPhipps]

Also the US abandoning regions to instability led to the creation of ISIS soo.....

They did not sacrifice thousands of Asmerican lives to pacify the Congo so...

Stick to that precedent.

The logic of, "Last time we did this, we fucked up and got thousands of Americans killed and caused a massive humanitarian crisis."

Is countered by, "But Congo!"

Man what?

[CharlesPhipps]

It's true they didn't vote in Assad, but it seems to mostly be a heap of people hoping their side comes out in charge. Not all of them, and there are some really genuinely good people there, but they don't seem to be in the majority.

As far as stability, (1) there are a lot of regions the U.S. has let lay in disorder without international terrorism arising, and (2) the Russians and Assad will provide order. Not a very nice type of order, but order.

Assad is the reason the situation has become an enormous shitstorm and Russia has neither the military forces or diplomatic skills to win this conflict. People forget they've invaded multiple counties in recent years to annex them and got their asses kicked.

I foresee this ending very very badly.

Possibly with ISIS winning the region.

As far as America's commitment to human rights, we've worked toward that. Let China, Japan, Brazil, or Canada have a go at it.

America got to be the sole superpower by promising they'd be the policeman.

If they don't want the job, they don't get to be the big dog anymore.

And then we're all fucked as the next big dog is a monster.

[Darth Wedgius]

It's true they didn't vote in Assad, but it seems to mostly be a heap of people hoping their side comes out in charge. Not all of them, and there are some really genuinely good people there, but they don't seem to be in the majority.

As far as stability, (1) there are a lot of regions the U.S. has let lay in disorder without international terrorism arising, and (2) the Russians and Assad will provide order. Not a very nice type of order, but order.

Assad is the reason the situation has become an enormous shitstorm and Russia has neither the military forces or diplomatic skills to win this conflict. People forget they've invaded multiple counties in recent years to annex them and got their asses kicked.

I foresee this ending very very badly.

Possibly with ISIS winning the region.

As far as America's commitment to human rights, we've worked toward that. Let China, Japan, Brazil, or Canada have a go at it.

America got to be the sole superpower by promising they'd be the policeman.

If they don't want the job, they don't get to be the big dog anymore.

And then we're all fucked as the next big dog is a monster.

Russia seems to be doing OK in the Ukraine. They didn't do so well in Afghanistan, but that was a while ago. If ISIS wins, that's bad, but I think Russia and Assad will do whatever it takes to prevent that, including chemical weapons if necessary. If they do, I hope we send a strongly-worded protest to the U.N.

America got to be the big dog mostly by outlasting the U.S.S.R. and being, well, big, and modern. We didn't sign any agreement saying that if we don't prevent chemical weapon attacks in the middle east we have to withdraw from NATO or give up some GDP. And we certainly didn't promise to keep throwing blood and treasure into a fight trying to turn people who have shown little predilection for liberal democracy into a western-style government. Hell, we're still working on western-style government.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

America got to be the big dog mostly by outlasting the U.S.S.R. and being, well, big, and modern. We didn't sign any agreement saying that if we don't prevent chemical weapon attacks in the middle east we have to withdraw from NATO or give up some GDP. And we certainly didn't promise to keep throwing blood and treasure into a fight trying to turn people who have shown little predilection for liberal democracy into a western-style government. Hell, we're still working on western-style government.

I think neoconservatism is kinda dorment post Bush administration.

[CharlesPhipps]

Famously, Bush told the Ukraine they'd be fine to give up their nuclear weapons because we'd protect them from Russia.

[Karha of Honor]

Also the US abandoning regions to instability led to the creation of ISIS soo.....

They did not sacrifice thousands of Asmerican lives to pacify the Congo so...

Stick to that precedent.

The logic of, "Last time we did this, we fucked up and got thousands of Americans killed and caused a massive humanitarian crisis."

Is countered by, "But Congo!"

Man what?

It's and imperfect world with sinful man.

Famously, Bush told the Ukraine they'd be fine to give up their nuclear weapons because we'd protect them from Russia.

There are a tons of Russians there. Why would they nuke them?

[Darth Wedgius]

Famously, Bush told the Ukraine they'd be fine to give up their nuclear weapons because we'd protect them from Russia.

Are you talking about the Budapest Memorandum?

[Darth Wedgius]

I think neoconservatism is kinda dorment post Bush administration.

If neoconservatism is hawkish conservatism, I agree. Bush famously didn't want to do"nation-building," then tried it anyway, with limited success and at very high cost. You might wonder what alternative he had, at least in Afghanistan, but I think it's not something most conservatives are leaning towards nowadays.

[Karha of Honor]

I think neoconservatism is kinda dorment post Bush administration.

If neoconservatism is hawkish conservatism, I agree. Bush famously didn't want to do"nation-building," then tried it anyway, with limited success and at very high cost. You might wonder what alternative he had, at least in Afghanistan, but I think it's not something most conservatives are leaning towards nowadays.

Plenty. You spend 20000 on an informant, the raid might cost 20 million or somehting and you killed Bin Laden.

[Darth Wedgius]

I think neoconservatism is kinda dorment post Bush administration.

If neoconservatism is hawkish conservatism, I agree. Bush famously didn't want to do"nation-building," then tried it anyway, with limited success and at very high cost. You might wonder what alternative he had, at least in Afghanistan, but I think it's not something most conservatives are leaning towards nowadays.

Plenty. You spend 20000 on an informant, the raid might cost 20 million or somehting and you killed Bin Laden.

But it would still have left Al Qaeda with an area to operate freely from. They were allies with the Taliban, and the Taliban ran Afghanistan.