So now we're going to fight Syria?

Let's focus on electric and hydrogen cars, buses, trucks and plains and walk away from the need for oil.

oil is used for more then combustion.

But without oil, we'll have less to sell at the end of the session!

On a more serious note, I wish we could just stop pissing the world off. We need some real leaders in both Congress and the White House.

A little late.. but the Syria thing was not about Syria. It was about the Russians, and to another extent the North Koreans. In essence, it was about rebuilding deterrence after 8 years of a president who completely obliterated any semblance of American power. He moved his red lines so much that when Russia invaded a member of NATO, he had no recourse. Better believe that Russia won't be invading any members of NATO if they think that a) Trump is unpredictable (he campaigned on non-interventionalism) and b) He is not afraid to use extensive force against anyone. It was a calculated move that was probably pre-planned... find an excuse that is safe but meaningful, strike without forewarning, flex your muscles, leave the situation alone but offer a veiled threat for next time. It means a lot more than drone striking a few terrorists in a backwater nation which is the best Obama could do. Trump's foreign policy appears to be a backlash against years of bad foreign policy. Funny, many were saying he had no foreign policy platform when he was running and he actually seems to have done everything right on that front where Obama looks like the buffoon. Even if you don't like him on other fronts, there's not much you can be mad about here. Now... if he had gone into Syria and removed Assad in this instance, it would be disastrous, but this move was an effective calculation.

This situation bears Trump's name but has Mattis's fingerprints all over it. Definitely a smart move by a good general. (Of course it could be a lucky move or even a smart move by Trump but he is not a military guy and never claimed to be one and this move was clearly very calculated)

Also, has nothing to do with oil, US doesn't need it and hasn't for years, lessons learned from when OPEC crashed the oil market. This is about flexing global muscle to prevent US enemies from flexing theirs.

The only way the US is gonna stop pissing the world off is if it ceases to exist. Same with Israel, same with Britain at it's height, same with everyone back to the first Athenian democracy. The fact is that the US has created an atmosphere where the world is far safer than ever before despite the fact that progressives are trying to ruin that. Sad to see so many of the JFK-esque liberals abandon the Democrats. I blame a generation of people who bought into the propaganda that America is a force for evil in the world when really it is a force for good. I'm not even American and I recognise the value of it - maybe because I recognise that American is the only nation ever that has protected the whole world without invading it and making it their vassals if not their colonies.

We've invaded loads of people! We've been engaged in near-constant wars and military actions since the Spanish American war! Why do you think we have territories and military bases all over the world? It's not because people asked us to!

That said, I don't believe we are a "force for evil" or anything like that. I just really feel like our politicians are becoming too arrogant, and the media are only encouraging this arrogance.

I'd argue a lot of people have asked the Americans to be involved. Nearly everyone has.... usually one side is saying they don't want help. It reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zYb9UW4oH8

There were a few bad wars, but most were good, and more often then not, the most valid criticism is not that the US got involved but that they got involved too late. The Americans always do the right thing after trying everything else. WW2, Bosnia, Iraq (unpopular but the guy was a mass murderer, you can't defend not removing him unless you acknowledge that the middle east needs brutal dictatorships), and so on. The US has definitely been a force for good. There might be one united North Korean regime if not for the US.

Vietnam the most lambasted war of the 20th century was not just an ideological war, it was an affront against communism that up until that point had killed tens of millions, and if the American public had the wherewithal to understand that then the US would have won. Hell, they won in Vietnam in every way imaginable. The fact that the Tet offensive was seen as a disaster in the US despite being the worst blunder in modern military history by the Vietcong is insane to me. An absolute joke that, along with not providing deterrence when they broke the CF agreement, led to many more deaths by communism.

Pax Americana has lead to a relatively stable world despite the fact we are at the height of weapons technology. The fact that the most brutal wars these days do not have the same scale of major genocides and weapons of mass destruction that plagued the 20th century is because there is a monopoly on the military by one country. Frankly, everyone is afraid of the US intervening, or was, before Obama. Obama intervened in weird ways in places like Libya that did not need intervening in and drew red lines in Syria then let people walk across them. If you put a line in the sand and you're the biggest, baddest cat in the alley, then you damn well better not let anyone cross it. Trump proved in one attack that if Obama had been decisive, the Russians would have done nothing. There are other dominoes that were affected by Obama's line including the annexation of Crimea.

I think I mentioned I'm not even American. I just think you guys need to realise what the Roman's forgot in the years before they collapsed... your system is worthy of praise and it is a force for good, I personally think it is the best system. To date. You should have pride in it because it is keeping the rest of us safe.

Syria was about an oil pipeline

They asked them to when they realized learning German and Japanese was going to be difficult.

Braden is a piece of gear :)

You know WWII isn't what I was referring to. We'd been forcibly obtaining territories both on the continent and in the Pacific for decades before WWII.

I won't argue with you on those...

But this one I have some issues with. Certainly, Saddam was a terrible dictator, but because we went off half-fluffed thinking we'd be greeted with open arms as liberators instead of enacting a real plan, Iraq has become a breeding ground for insurgent activity, as well as an open battlefield. Yes, Saddam committed acts of terror against his own people, but at least they didn't have to live in constant fear of being blown to pieces by an errant air strike or a random car bombing. On top of that, we had no business invading Iraq, which makes the whole thing even more tasteless to me.

I really don't believe any of that. The world isn't stable, we've got mounting tensions everywhere. Most wars aren't on the same scale as wars in the past because the sides involved are often very lop-sided in terms of power, so they become insurgencies rather than direct confrontations. I also don't think military hegemony is the reason why countries are less willing to engage in genocide, I think it's the rise of social media and globalization. It's hard to pretend you're not killing millions of people when the victims and bystanders can upload pictures and videos within seconds of it happening. That's why more brutal regimes like China and Iran restrict internet access and content, after all.


Edit: Also, apparently c**k is a censored word here, so half-c**ked got censored to half-fluffed. I just thought that was hilarious, and wanted to make clear what I was saying there.

post