Search results for query: *

Don’t be silly, once “the right person”TM is in office all these little restrictions will be ignored.

So like we thought, they decided to use indirect means, using their pets rather than doing it themselves.

Stability doesn't mean anything like everyone gets along and sings kumbaya, maintaining order means the region is functional enough to keep the oil flowing, and to not dump its entire populace on Europe's door. However, with energy independence we no longer need them, and with the USSR dead we...

I would argue it is bluster they are trying to see if congress, or the people will make him back down, if he doesn't they will probably do something against the Saudis and claim victory. Remember their leadership is corrupt not stupid.

I wouldn't freak out just yet, Trumps philosophy has always been to negotiate from a position of strength, they hurt us, we hurt them and then begin negotiating, rather than negotiating after being hit which makes us appear weak. The concept of face matters a lot in the rest of the world, that...

I would argue it is more the desire to negotiate from a position of strength, something he has talked about many times. We saw it with North Korea and I would argue it is his goal here.

My idea for Afghanistan would have been when we found out what mountain Bin Laden was on drop several moabs and any other fuel air bomb we had on the mountain killing the entire camp and hopefully creating a nice crater lake as a reminder of what happens if you attack us.

To a degree this was inevitable, prior to coming up with fracking, the US was dependent on global oil supplies, it is only now that we are self sufficient for years to come, in other words it is only now possible to leave the sandbox. However, we don't want to appear weak while doing so...

His point on the US withdrawing doesn't mean we won't blow things up right now, it means we no longer care if anything is standing there, in other words the US if challenged will simply intentionally destabilise the region and leave them to fight amongst themselves in the rubble. In other words...

The problem is there is no way to avoid all conflict, we do nothing like we did before following them striking our drone or facilities we historically defended they attack us, we retaliate they call us evil... forgive me for playing devils advocate but what option is there that doesn't result in...

It was an attack on an embassy even if we went completely isolationist we would probably still have those, so this would still be an issue. I feel this post by Peter Zeihan accurately summarizes the situation. Another Round in the Middle East? - Peter Zeihan

To be fair retaliation doesn't really qualify as imperialism. I am opposed to war, however a nation cannot permit itself to be attacked and not retaliate... the reason for the reaction is because historically the US wanted a stable world, now an unstable world is perfectly fine, and actually...

Being on top always means we have to deal with complaints... as someone once said they hate us cause they ain't us.

Forgive the double post but that is how the game works, they kill some of ours we kill some of theirs, the parties involved won't escalate because this isn't unusual in geopolitics.

It is a grey area but not unheard of, see for instance many operations during the cold war or the drone strikes done during the past ten years.