We started "regime change" back after world war 1. It's just been business as usual since then. While we may finally be deviating from the norm here and there, I still think it needs to be acknowledged and brought in to the light of truth if we're going to start working genuinely with other countries on not doing anymore.

I think it was bigger than oil. We've been trying to make powerful, rich "friends" by taking out their allies since like 1921. Problem is... their enemies are now our friends, so we're literally putting allies against allies.

@SpaceWillie2000 I expect there were many factors, one of which was certainly oil. Another would be disaster capitalism. How can a corporation take money from American people? Get them to pay taxes first of course, then blow up this perceived threat out of all realistic proportion, then give taxpayer funded contracts to make war weaponry to Lockheed Martin (who of course operate in and out of the revolving door with government), then brazenly also give them the contracts to rebuild Iraq, again funded by taxpayers. Oh and gab the oil while you are at it. I don't imagine too many Iraqis got the rebuilding jobs, but then I wasn't there. Being paid to obliterate and then rebuild is great business. Shame it is evil and rotten to the core. Scumbags

Nobody said anything about the US being better or worse than any other nation builders out there. But the fact remains we have done some shady things in the name of foreign aid. Most recently giving Iran the capacity to give equipment and training to Hamas and others like them while trying to defend the targets of their aggression in allies to Israel.

Not saying the playing field is level or even, or that it even could be at this point in history, but someone needs to start aiming for peace rather than dominance. I think it aught to be we Americans who set the standard and show compassion while still keeping our feet grounded and pressing forward toward real solutions. Then if others say they wanna be like us, fine, we can talk.

@SpaceWillie2000
Well, the problem with Our Governmental System is that, while one group of people dominate the System, they start doing things that the next group might stop ... or wish to undo but once the “program” is started, it can’t easily be undone or terminated.
For instance, the example you gave sounds very much like something (Giving Iran) started by the Obama Administration where the other (trying to defend ... Israel) sounds very much like a Trump Administration Policy/Program.
It’s not like one Administration can throw a “Stop” switch ...

Personally I think Obama and His Administration were scum who deliberately pandered to Iran, Syria, ISIS and Terrorist Organizations.

I have often likened the Trump Administration to a couple Train Engines trying to bring to a stop a Million Ton, 75 Car, Runaway Train ... no matter how Good they are ... no matter how Important it is ... it takes time to slow that mess down ... it takes time to make it change direction. No matter how many details that can be handled at one time, there are always going to be some things that get away from them.

Further the deliberate obstruction in approving several Officers and Offices by the Democrats makes a difficult job more difficult ... the Democrat, Anti-Trump and RINO “OBSTRUCT at ANY COST” thought process doesn’t make things any easier.

I think your desire for “peace” is admirable and a great goal to strive for ... on the other hand ... there a massive segments of the World Outside the US Borders that simply think ... or act like they think ... that your desire for “peace” is complete nonsense. Sometimes there are areas that require being dominated in order to try to force “peace” on them ...
If we have no other option, do you advocate stepping aside and lettin those places devolve into Anarchy? Despotic Socialism? Outright Tyranical Dictatorship?
If we elect to leave these places with a Vacuum for a Power Structure, should we be willing to accept that the Chinese or Russians will step in and put their own preferred model into place?
When do you feel it would be time to push back?
Do you honestly believe that your desire for “Peace” will simply allow it to happen?

@Bay0Wulf I feel Trump had the right take on the Syria thing when he said "safe zones" would be a hell of a lot better for their nation and their people than just mass extradition of anyone who was suffering from the war we've been waging on their streets via proxy armies funded by our friendly saudi royalty.

On the subject of Syria specifically, I'm still surprised no one is talking about the fact that we were literally one more sanctimonious push by the Clinton state department from all out war with Russia and China over foreign soil. The No Fly Zone proposal over Syria would have ended... horribly... the second one team shot down another's plane and thus suffered the "righteous wrath" of the other two sides, who would eventually start fighting with each other and potentially spark something that would destroy much more than Syria and Yemen.

We as a nation should only step in when the playing field is broken, and the people truly need help and CANNOT do it themselves. Food, medicine and advise should be readily available to aid those who need it, but with as broad reaching as our military has become, it's starting to work against us on the world stage as anyone with an objection to any of our policies in the UN have pointed out... we look like the bullies with very little skewing of facts. To limit that, and do some PR control. we should start letting these places defend themselves, or pay us to handle it. Something else Trump had emphasized not just in his rhetoric but in actual execution of plans. Which I love.

China and russia will always step in, everywhere that the US fails to do so. And they, like us, will eventually start to realize that it's not worth the resources to help people who won't help themselves. China by dictatorial control, Russia by suave business dealings and resources. Both will be cost all they have by trying to fill the resource gaps we aren't. We're tired of being used, though. We're tired of non-reciprocal trade deals and places just taking without giving anything, and most times just taking more. It's a long way off, but if we keep strong on this path, I think we can divert that rail car down a better path rather than having to try and stop it.

I used to believe that, but they don't invade countries with no resources. There are plenty of dictators all over Asia and Africa, but no natural resources to exploit. So, we don't liberate those people. Then there's the declassified stuff about Iran in the 50's, removing their elected leader, and installing one in our own interest. Twice. And, then he gave the US 40% interest in the Iranian oil fields. Most likely why the country hates us today.

@DomGuerilla Has any nation ever invaded another that had no resources? That's kind of the point isn't it?

@DomGuerilla And General Suharto, and Pinochet, and hell even the retreating Khmer Rouge, fresh from their genocide, were re-armed by Western allies in the wake of Vietnam's liberation of Cambodia because following the Vietnam war the west couldn't be seen to be endorsing anything they did - even save a people from one of history's biggest acts of mass murder.

@DomGuerilla, @JayKane it might be the point but that isn't how they sell it to the public - they wouldn't as easily get away with it.

@DomGuerilla Nations with no resources are less likely to threaten their neighbors or the US, provoking a response. The first gulf war, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Afghanistan's major resource is illegal drugs. We invaded there shortly after 9/11.

I'm not claiming that the US has always had pure intentions, we have definitely done shady things in the past, and still do. But it's complicated.

"But look how things have turned out: Now in the West this has all turned into an accusation against the United States. Now, in the West, we hear very many voices saying, “It’s your fault, America.” And, here, I must decisively defend the United States against these accusations.

I have to say that the United States, of all the countries of the West, is the least guilty in all this and has done the most in order to prevent it. The United States has helped Europe to win the First and the Second World Wars. It twice raised Europe from post-war destruction—twice—for 10, 20, 30 years it has stood as a shield protecting Europe while European countries were counting their nickels, to avoid paying for their armies (better yet to have none at all) to avoid paying for armaments, thinking about how to leave NATO, knowing that in any case America will protect them anyway. These countries started it all, despite their thousands of years of civilization and culture, even though they are closer and should have known better." -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[imprimis.hillsdale.edu]

We have acted in what we felt is the right way after any disaster, man-made or natural. At some point, we turned it in to a business. That's where we went wrong.

@CautiousDreamer Afghanistan turned out to be a lot less barren than the world thought before America invaded. Mining for industrial metals is the future there. Everyone loves their electronic gadgets that run on lithium ion batteries these days.

@CautiousDreamer There are definitely a lot of things at play in theses situations. It couldn't be that simple.

I didn't like Nikki Haley, but she proved that she can be trusted to stand up to literally every other nation in the world and be like... "No, no, no. Listen here, sumbitch. This is America. We don't wipe our asses with our hands and we don't negotiate with two-faced snakes"

Despite having recently been the two faced snake in the room under the garbage leadership of John Kerry, notorious liar and failed presidential candidate, we are on much more solid footing finally. We have to restore our strength, and the best way to do that is to restore our credibility by doing what we say we are going to do, then making those goals benefit others BY EXAMPLE rather than by making them do it our way.

Have to catch that horse before it can be put back in the barn .

I think it could be accomplished if we start defining what that really means.

Should we not be trying to send food and supplies to Venezuela? Maduro believes we're sneaking in guns and terrorists and he may be right. What if he is? What if he isn't?

What if Chairman Kim is the only leader seeing things as they are and we are secretly this horrible organization attempting to control by force or proxy every other nation out there? Granted, evidence doesn't point to him being exceptionally astute, or logical, or intelligent, but still. Even a monkey gets it right now and then.

What can we do to set ourselves on even more solid footing than we have now?