re: WaPo: Russia has invited TRUMP to Syrian Peace Talks

I mean, if we are axiomatically and inviably involved no matter what, I can understand the reasoning. As you said, though, I think that's a pretty tenuous premise.

I hear SA has plenty of space for refugees

quote:

---

What with that pesky nuclear war he started with China by taking that phone call from Taiwan and all...

---

For the record -- I'm a huge supporter of anything Trump does to legitimize Taiwan. They will be far and away the best ally this country could possibly have once we finally announce that we formally recognize them.

Un-officially, they are already one of our strongest allies - we just don't have any bases over there.

quote:

---

Dude. Seriously, where have you been? I've said this several times. It saves American lives. We will never divest - politically, militarily, economically - from the ME. Too many of our true Allies will force our hand as a world power. So my basis is simple -- what allows for less violence where Americans are involved?

---

So we must remain allies with the gulf states because it is inevitable that we will be allied with the gulf states?

Can you not see the insanity of this logic? NOTHING is permanent. Everything ends. This alliance will end too. No matter how difficult it is for you to see that. It can end on our terms or another party's terms, but it will end. So understanding that truth, how can you justify the conclusion stated above?

The KSA alliance is a massive liability built on US desires for regional hegemony. Our alliance with Saudi Arabia has facilitated massive death and destruction, not prevented it. Our primary reason for an alliance with KSA is their ability to manipulate the oil market. They are an economic weapon. We just happened to get military bases out of the deal as well. Secondary reasons include big business interests such as the defense industry and the oil industry. Tertiary, lobbies that get into our politicians pockets during every election cycle. There is not a single legitimate national defense benefit to having this alliance with Saudi. We do not need bases, or partial control over the world's oil supply to be a secure nation.

If we were to redefine our relationship with KSA as a purely economic one, then we could have avoided two (well, three now) wars in Iraq, The war in Syria, and the potential war in Yemen. That's 4.5 trillion dollars saved and over 5,000 US lives. Claiming that the alliance is inevitable or fate is no justification for continuing it. It's just not true either.

quote:

---

Because the US currently has military bases in both SA and UAE. We run substantial operations out of both areas (and other countries in the region) in effort to protect yeman and jordan from ISIS threat

---

These bases have been around for decades. They have nothing to do with ISIS.

The capital of Yemen is under Houthi control and Saudi Arabia is bombing the living piss out of them in an effort to win a COIN fight. The US is assisting KSA with lethal aid to fight the HOUTHIS, not ISIS. ISIS and AQI are in the south with virtually free reign. The houthis are enemies of the Sunni VEOS, KSA is bombing the Houthis and their allies. this has absolutely nothing to do with ISIS. It has everything to do with the Houthi's ideological alignment with Iran and their historic beef with Saudi Arabia (they live across both border). If the US isn't careful, it will find itself invading it's fourth country in 15 years, and losing yet another war. That's what the KSA alliance has netted the US. two wars in Iraq, a war in Syria, and a soon to be war in Yemen. 4,000,000 people have died as a result of this nonsense, yet we are supposed to believe that without this alliance it would be worse? We can never know if it would or would not be until it happens, but we can know that our involvement is voluntary and not inevitable. It isn't fate that keeps us there.

The US bases in Qatar and Jordan are not in place to protect Jordan or Yemen from ISIS. The US base in Jordan is not in place to protect Jordan from ISIS. Actually, Sunni VEOs have targeted the US/Jordanian bases because Jordan is helping the US war in Syria. Jordan is actually at risk of Sunni VEO terrorist attacks because we are allied with Jordan and conducting train and equip programs to fight in Syria. Jordan is basically a vassal state of the US, and they have no leverage to resist our operations there.

quote:

---

If the US loses the UAE/SA alliance, then our presence will diminish out of necessity. That immediately strengthens Iran's position in the region. I don't know who will fire the first shot, but violence will break out between Iran and SA/UAE.

---

I find it highly unlikely that Iran and Saudi have a full blown shooting war. It is likely they continue to have proxy wars in the region, as they have for decades. Proxy wars greatly exacerbated by the US involvement in the region. I don't even know what to say about this issue, because your logic preludes any meaningful discussion about this subject. "It's gonna happen anyway" isn't really an argument IMO.

that being said, let's play it out: KSA and Iran have a shooting war. So? Iran and Iraq had a shooting war. half a million died, and then it ended. The Arab's had a few wars with the Israelis, then it ended. Lebanon had a civil war, then it ended. Should the US have jumped into the fray on all of these to prevent the bloodshed? Of course not. Defending KSA and their regional aspirations sounds like a job for KSA. The US cannot afford to balance the power between Iran and KSA indefinitely. If there is going to be a war between the two, let it happen and let's see where the chips fall.

quote:

---

That extensive chaos will cause a much bigger body count. Make no mistake, I am in no way, shape, or form advocating that SA is a fantastic ally. I do not agree with their government, especially on it's treatment of its citizens. I'm merely of the belief that the alternative will be worse.

---

FTR, I never believed that you cared for the KSA government. I dispute that the chaos and violence will be worse without the US involvement. If anything, US involvement is prolonging the situation instead of letting it resolve. As it stands now, US involvement has sparked more death and chaos than all the other middle eastern wars in this and the previous century. forgive me if I have a hard time accepting that things would be worse without the US/KSA alliance fueling the fire. Assuming that it would be, how is it the responsibility of the US to be involved? Again, saying that involvement is inevitable isn't an argument. "It is what it is" doesn't really pass muster for me on this issue. If it did, there would be no point in ever discussing anything.

quote:

---

One final note: make no doubt about it, if the US gets pulled into another full-scale action in the ME - China will start expanding their boundaries through force. They haven't been building islands in the South China Sea just for vacation destinations. They are expanding their military presence in the region for a reason - and that reason is opportunity. There is a reason that the US has committed providing over a billion dollars (could be off a bit on this amount as it has fluctuated the past 10 months) in military/foreign aid to Vietnam over the next few years. China is preparing for opportunity.

---

Sure, I have no doubt that China wants expansion. Seems plausible that they will take advantage of America tying its hands to a pointless conflict in the ME. I personally don't care what burdens they saddle themselves with in SE Asia. I don't believe the US will benefit from getting involved in a series of proxy war in Asia AGAIN. We lost 100,000 between Korea and vietnam before both were claimed by the communists. It didn't work out well then, it won't work out well now, just like our alliance with KSA and proxy war with Iran isn't working out.

Your arguments are all valid and logic. However, we start at very different places -- I feel that the US is locked in to the ME whether we want to be there or not. That is the position that WWI and WWII has put us.

You mention all of the failed wars in the ME region and say, "well, if we weren't there, they would've ended. if there's a new one, let it happen and it will end and we'll be just fine and dandy by sitting on the sidelines."

yet, you don't mention anything about the USSR/Afghanistan war. Why was USSR there? because they want a strong-hold on the region. Why are they now in Syria? Because they want a strong-hold on the region. If you remove a US presence from the region, then Russia will immediately move in to take control of the region.

Is that our problem? No, not immediately. But it will become our problem because it allows Russia to exert even greater control over the US both economically and politically. In my opinion, that appears to be our greatest threat -- the continual increase of activities by Russia to become the dominant power of the world.

I am not comfortable with that scenario - I believe that ends with a far larger conflict causing far more deaths, both American and non-American. My preference is to have zero conflicts. But that is not realistic. Even if the US retracts 100% into it's borders, we will be forced to stop the encroachment at some point.

I find it ironic that you feel comfortable with pulling out of the region because the US has been the cause of so many deaths in the region. Do you honestly feel that with Russia in control of the region there will be fewer deaths? I don't. And I think we will get sucked into larger conflict.

Additionally, we have not discussed our commitment to Israel. I have personally had an officer in the ME use the term, "when there is war with Israel..." and someone in my party to cut him off to correct him, "don't you mean, 'if there is a war with Israel'" and his response was, "No. I mean when." Our best defense of Israel is to do our best to not need to defend them. We do that by maintain a stronger presence in the region. Granted, there is growing sentiment in this country to abandon that commitment of protecting Israel. However, I don't think we'll see that in my lifetime. I could be wrong, Trump could issue a declaration ending our involvement in the UN agreements to protect the Israel state. Somehow, I don't think that is the direction he will take.

People need to distinguish between the term Globalist and the responsibility as a Global Power. We can be US-centric and protect US interest first, while at the same time be a responsible global power.

Thanks for your response. Much more impactful and educational than calling me a dick sucker.