Will Beijing Biden Start New wars?

[Ronson]

Yeah. That one nearly pushed the Saudis into the Russian's camp. They saw what happened in Egypt as the betrayal of an ally and wondered just how much they could trust us. One thing about the Russians they always support their allies even when they disagree whereas our support and friendship can disappear like magic any time a new president moves into the White House. Likely the main reason that they didn't turn to Russia is they were already friends with their most dangerous enemy, Iran, and they probably figured that if it came to a conflict between the two the Russians might be forced to choose between the two and they couldn't chance it that they would pick the country they share a border with and had a longer relationship with. That and almost all of their military equipment is American and ours is better.

Obama's foreign policy was a train wreck. Our allies were all googly-eyed over him, all the while he was tapping their phones. The media was all googly over him, all the while he was harassing them and trying to have them arrested.
https://nypost.com/2017/04/26/obamas...ther-comments/

Not to mention his wreaking havoc throughout the Middle East with his misguided, amateur attempts at spreading democracy. Trump repaired a lot of that and went a step further, getting Muslim nations to officially recognize Israel. Will he get credit for it? Nah.

And now, here's comes China Biden ... weeeeeee!

[Mountain Man]

I didn't want to derail another thread that started down this path.

I was defending the Libertarian foreign policy position to avoid the old "America: World Policeman" role we slowly devolved into since the early 1990s (thanks a lot, Maggie).



ISIS wasn't posing any real threat to the US. It caught our attention more because of its ruthless behavior and public beheadings, but its targets were just about everyone in the Middle East - not the US. That being the case, it wasn't our fight. It was a perfect opportunity for those endlessly squabbling nations to come together and defeat them, which should have been rather easy considering they had them surrounded.

IMO, the US should not get involved in any conflict that does not directly threaten the US, our vital interests, or a solid* ally.

(* "ally" meaning a country that would also come to our aid in a significant manner)

An isolationist policy didn't work so well in the lead up to World War 2.

I think there is wisdom in allowing some regional conflicts to play out unhindered, but then there are other instances where a potential victor presents a clear international threat and should be dealt with, but the US shouldn't do it all on our own. There needs to be equal contributions from our allies, which is supposed to be the whole point of NATO.

[rogue06]

An isolationist policy didn't work so well in the lead up to World War 2.

I think there is wisdom in allowing some regional conflicts to play out unhindered, but then there are other instances where a potential victor presents a clear international threat and should be dealt with, but the US shouldn't do it all on our own. There needs to be equal contributions from our allies, which is supposed to be the whole point of NATO.

In all fairness, NATO was formed to defend Europe from Soviet aggression, not to act as the world's policemen.

[Mountain Man]

In all fairness, NATO was formed to defend Europe from Soviet aggression, not to act as the world's policemen.

True, but as I said, we should only intervene in foreign conflicts if a potential victor poses an international threat.

[Ronson]

An isolationist policy didn't work so well in the lead up to World War 2.

1) There's a difference between being "isolationist" and being "interventionist." In regard to 1930s Europe, that would have happened regardless of US intervention. It was more a lesson about how to treat a vanquished enemy (Germany after WWI) than trying to impose "regime change" around the world.

2) The world of the 1930s is obviously quite different from today. Like, it was OK to bomb innocent civilians into oblivion back then, but that would be tantamount to a war crime today. We shouldn't constantly apply a 20th-century template to the 21st century.

[rogue06]

1) There's a difference between being "isolationist" and being "interventionist." In regard to 1930s Europe, that would have happened regardless of US intervention. It was more a lesson about how to treat a vanquished enemy (Germany after WWI) than trying to impose "regime change" around the world.

2) The world of the 1930s is obviously quite different from today. Like, it was OK to bomb innocent civilians into oblivion back then, but that would be tantamount to a war crime today. We shouldn't constantly apply a 20th-century template to the 21st century.

Realistically speaking, war crimes are decided by the victors

[Ronson]

In all fairness, NATO was formed to defend Europe from Soviet aggression, not to act as the world's policemen.

And aside from being mostly obsolete today (assuming it deters any outside attack against Europe) it creates problems due to its grotesque growth. It incorporates nations that are historically hostile toward each other (Turkey and Greece, for example) and some tiny countries that are mostly indefensible in any practical sense.