This only makes sense if you think the number of foreign lives saved is greater than zero. Assad isn't Hitler. Is he even worse than Erdogan? Gaddafi wasn't. If you want to save lives dropping bombs is not plan A or B or C or D.....

Half a million dead in Syria, man. 10M displaced. I believe early intervention would have saved a lot of people.

@microbet

Assad seems much worse than Erdogan.

Your post reminded me of this article, hes pretty putrid bro.

http://nypost.com/2013/09/02/assad-i...-hitler-kerry/

Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday compared Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to “Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein” — as lab tests proved the sarin nerve agent was used to kill nearly 1,500 civilians.

“Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who have used these weapons in time of war,” Kerry told NBC’s “Face the Nation.”

Kerry called the attack an “affront against the decency and sensibilities of the world.”

end derail/

I think we can all agree that Trump is too dumb to implement any FP. I think isolationism and protectionism is profoundly immoral and ultimately not on the countries best interest but reasonable people disagree.

Intervention against Assad?

I don't know that an outside power intervening in a mostly internal conflict can ever work, but when there isn't even a side for us to support? No way. Probably not under any circumstances will bombing save lives here and certainly not in Syria, next to Iraq, managed by the US, at this point in history. You can have a fantasy "maybe we should have done more in Libya", but that's exactly what would have made it worse. Maybe making it the 51st state would have been good for Libyans, but I don't think that would have made it through congress etc.

Yes.

Not being a neocon does not imply isolationism.

And with Trump, the biggest problem is that he's an unpredictable idiot. Not understanding why using just one or two nukes is a big problem is one of many automatic disqualifiers for him.

So is Erdogan. Turkish Kurds are terrorists and Syrian or Iraqi Kurds are freedom fighters, or as Chomsky would say, Iraqi and Syrian Kurds are worthy victims and Turkish Kurds aren't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/us...plan.html?_r=0

Jason Miller, a campaign spokesman, said that Mr. Trump would lay out “three pillars” to fighting radical Islamic terrorism. The speech, Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s policy adviser, said, would call for a stricter immigration questionnaire for people from nations with ties to terrorism; for new alliances with nations willing to help fight terrorism; and for a move from “nation-building” to foreign policy “realism.” The questionnaire, he added, would require applicants to prove commitment to the ideals of “tolerance” and “pluralism,” but he did not say precisely how such a thing would be enforced.

Translation is we <3 Putin

Looking forward to the **** show, or speech or whatever you wanna call it.

I don't think we should be too hard on any politicians in regard to Syria. It is a FP crisis of such magnitude that there actually not be a really good solution. The ramifications of the Syrian Civil War and complexities will still be relevant and actively affecting the world after we are long dead.

A Sunni population, ruled by a Shia dictatorship with a long history of being a quasi Soviet Satellite, backed by Iran, the preeminent and ascendent Muslim nuclear power in the region. Not to mention the additional presence of Hezzbollah, an extremely powerful, state sponsored terrorist organization. If all that wasn't enough, the most effective fighters against ISIS and other extreme, as opposed to moderate Sunni rebel groups, have been the Kurds. The same Kurds who pose a direct threat to the overall sovereign power of a not totally stable NATO ally, Turkey.

Thought it was over? But wait. A considerable part of the rebel force is comprised of groups who are simultaneously a huge threat to the existing status qou in the conservative Gulf States, which control a huge percentage of the world oil supply, and are also in active combat with Iranian and Iranian sponsored pro government groups. The old line Kings and Emirs in the Gulf States, who are sponsored and protected by the United States, fear both the Sunni radicalism fighting Assad, and the potential, which is seen as a much greater existential threat,regional hegemony of Iran. A victory for Assad is a loss for the Saudis, a victory for the free Syrian movement also threatens the existing order.

The entire situation makes Iraq look like a game of Tic Tac Toe, and we messed that up.

Now along comes Donald Trump. Bomb em', Nuke em', get the oil. It would all be funny if it weren't so tragic and so many people weren't dying.

I don't care what your politics are. We could really use Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Al Haig, Kissinger, Brezinski, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, George HW Bush, George Schultz, Henry Stimson. The world needs giants, instead we get midgets. DT, Manafort, Lewandowski , and Katrina Pearson/Scottie Nells Hughes handling the PR. #!Sad!

"<10%"

Thank you! lol dummy

Your first paragraph is different than your last 2. Being a super power (even a somewhat benevolent one) is different than being a shining city on a hill. The US uses its power to advance its own interests before any other humanitarian type considerations. And like I said, it's still better than most super powers would be. But don't confuse that for being a great role model of how countries should act.

I don't and we agree as far as that goes.

Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Central and South America were no less complex and were handled no better. You can especially keep Kissenger. Killing millions of people and then receiving millions of refugees isn't any different than what we have now except it was on a bigger scale back then.

Isnt it a little bit ironic that trump has a spokesperson named J.Miller? lol

20 model updates in 16 days (since 7/29) and Trump's odds to win have decreased in every one, moving from 27.5% to 10.8%. Here's hoping she keeps it going and runs up the score. Or more accurately, he keeps it going and runs up the score on himself.

I work with developers. Standard to pay zero tax. A developer will often have only 10% of project cost invested, but gets to depreciate against the entire project value. Plus, interest on the debt is deductible. Add to that long term capital gains treatment and 1031 exchanges, and there is no more tax advantaged industry.

Speaking of foreign policy this is a great read on how the state department plan to stabilize Iraq fell apart. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...856_story.html

Penny wise pound foolish.

Absolutely this. The United States does not have the luxury of turning inward and not engaging the world. Are interests are simply to large, and have a huge impact on the world as a whole. We will never be Sweden, just too big.

Any action must be viewed through American self interest and security. Any improvement in the living conditions of other nations is simply a welcomed and great development, but is always secondary. The perfect example of this would be GHW Bush's handling of the first Gulf War. He used American power to restore the existing order in the Gulf, slapped Saddam on the snout a little bit, and sent him back home to continue his role as buffer between the Gulf states and Iran to his East, and Assad to his West. A well armed, secular Muslim dictator, holding his population, the Kurds, and Syria in check while simultaneously thwarting the rise of Iran. That is solid geopolitical Foreign Policy. A little hard edged, and maybe a little too Realpolitik for the Liberals on this board, but compared with twhat we are seeing now, I know which I would choose.

Compare this to W. He invaded and overthrew a sovereign nation, with no direct evidence that it would contribute to the overall stability of the region, in a feeble attempt to turn a tri-cultural dictatorship into a Western style democracy. That is hubris and arrogance on a huge level, and the world is now feeling the effects.

There can be no question that we are losing control of the post cold war peace. Perhaps we need a huge, insanely powerful enemy with crushing lethal potential to focus our minds again. We did okay in that game.
.

I would disagree that those situations were just as complex. They were all defined in their nature as proxy wars between Communism and the West. Eventually one side emerged victorious, and stability returned. I am not sure the Middle East and Syria are going to break that way as easily.

Okay, take Kissinger out, my point was simply that I would like to see some serious people instead of the clowns we are getting now.

Watching Hillary in Scranton with Biden. She is starting to find her game a little bit. She reminds me of getting on a rush and winning every hand. Nothing quite like a big and growing chip lead to get the confidence up and elevate performance.

Looking forward to what Joe has to say.

Trump lolz live stream starting at 2pm from Ohio

http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/live-s...nline-youtube/

I don't think this is correct. Of all the countries in the world, the U.S. probably has the least inherent interest in foreign affairs. The U.S. is effectively invulnerable on defense, both because it's significantly richer than any other first-tier country and because of its geographic isolation. We're more self-sufficient in resources than any other country. Economic and political stability is nice for us because of trade, but probably most of those benefits could be secured with a pre-WWI policy of using our military solely to defend our commercial interests. The main geopolitical concern for the U.S. is that, left to their own devices, the rest of the world would get taken over by communists or fascists or would incinerate itself in a nuclear war, either of which would be inconvenient, although likely not a direct security threat.

And you expect it could or would be any better in Syria or Libya why?

Lewandowski explaining his tweet of the Manafort story. He claims he wanted to show NYT is biased against Trump. Wow, whatever, dude.