Didn't mean to come off as a troll Trapper John, apologies. I'm just a believer that Assad isn't much of a bad guy. I don't buy the stories of him internationally hunting down and killing own segments of his population. He is actually a pretty moderate secular leader who did his post doctoral education in the West. Putin defending a long standing ally doesn't seem evil to me.

The evil Assad narrative seems like the same narrative we were fed with Ghadafi. Yes I'm aware of the evils he has done. However, we brought him down due to him nationalizing his own oil and not aligning himself with the big world bank. Now we have to endure his migrants and "refugees."

https://sputniknews.com/world/201509...s-arab-spring/


Putin and Assad are fighting the very evil radical Muslims we condemn here. The U.S. is supporting these very radicals, because our stake in this is the same as it was in Libya.

Like has been echoed in here already, good and bad is very blurry, and I love our country as well and will always uphold the oath I took.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/themars...hms-tmobile-us

Mustang Man - :lifter Now that's what I'm talking about. Thanks.

This thread's just getting better and better.

Scooter: A few years ago I would have strongly disagreed with your take on American history. My blinders came off (somewhat painfully) and I gained the insight to see that the picture is not always as you imagined it was painted.

Rhetoric is great coming from politicians who merely have to confuse the masses enough to get their votes. Not so great when the rhetoric is peeled back to reveal truth.

The last few years I get strange looks when I say I can't blame the Muslims for hating the "Great Satan" as our society tolerates, promotes and celebrates many things that their religion abhors. That acknowledgement though doesn't imply that the radical Islamists methods are in any way acceptable to me or to a (somewhat) civil and modern world.

Some days I feel our country would be a better place if we kept our noses out of other people's business.

Thanks for your insightful and though provoking post.

Next time you listen to the Marine Corps Hymn (and while at it, just the definition of "Hymn") and with a different set of lenses (less Rose colored) see an example of Scooter's take on US Military History, or more to the point US 'civilian' Foreign Policy going back hundreds of years to the same places that are evident in the news today.

It's a damn shame that all too often when the victors write history books they show themselves in a favorable light and a supporting bias. Even Hollywood is guilty of promoting that bias.

But, I too, am with my Brothers here that for all the horrible and disgraceful examples in our history the US can pride itself on doing things for the right reasons more often than not, even if the execution or purpose was flawed.

I am firmly of the belief that relations between countries are driven by self interest, and always have been. While I don't think our actions have been "good", I don't think they have been "evil" either. As for our foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, I don't think it has been "wrong". I just think it has been "dumb". We have done nothing to further our nation's core interests and have floundered around from one failed policy to the next without any real thought to what we were really doing, and why. I am not an isolationist, but I do question a large percent of our current military commitments and believe that many of them are not serving to make the US safer, prosperous, or more influential. Our efforts to spread market democracy in the Middle East have been catastrophically self defeating, and we should leave entirely. We are less safe, not more so. We do not need the oil at this point and can never kill an idea (fundamentalist Islam). We will never run out of people to hit with hellfires from drones. We have made the world more dangerous and ushered in endless human tragedy, with nothing to show for it other than multiplying enemies and a rash of failed states. Our policy needs a radical overhaul in many ways. The current approach is not working.

Hear, hear....

Well said, indeed!

Scooter, your observations come with maturity and experience.

Unfortunately, a commie college professor could take bits and pieces and spin a tale to less mature and less experienced minds - and denigrate our nation.

Context and perspective are needed to balance out the good with the bad. And, yes, we act in self interest...but not to the gluttonous state that those opposing our way of life might do - if given the same opportunity - think communism or sharia.

The United States (among countless good things) saved the world in WW2. We have not colonized nor in the recent conflicts stolen oil when we easily could have.

On the other hand - we gave the world ALGORE.

Correctly identifying the illness and correctly identifying the cure are not the same thing.

Decadence and licentiousness in the west are correctly identified as an illness.
Islam is not a cure.

Boy! Those were the good ol days, huh?

They sure were!

Well, for what its worth they already do.

The left sees America as a worse version of what I portrayed - a greedy, wolf of wall street country that commits crimes and genocide while oppressing minorities at home, all in the name of benefiting rich white men.

The right views America as the global Jesus Christ, nobly sacrificing ourselves to save all mankind when we had to opportunity to stay at home turning water into wine.

These views are both wrong, the answer is, like most things, somewhere in between. But don't kid yourself, when the chips are down, we will take self interest over altruism every time when there is something real on the line. I've seen it, on the ground, in person. In my opinion that is as it should be. I'm all for it. Just don't think that a lot of countries hate us "because of our freedom." That's really simplistic and is refusing to see the world as it is.

Likewise, saying Putin is a bully and a thug for protecting Russia's interests is equally dumb. We've been needlessly antagonizing them for years for no reason, and are now seeing the backlash. Obama tried to "reset" our relationship with Russia and he got cheered. Trump is trying the exact same thing, and being called a traitor (literally) by members of both parties. I think a lot of Trump's instincts are spot on, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Scooter,

What we have been doing has clearly not worked well and your unique insight and on-the-ground experience should stand you in good stead to secure an opportunity to influence change via other methods and in other arenas.

I have little respect for many in higher education today - they have become a politically correct echo chamber and I sincerely wish those well who must now endure it.

Finally, Trump's instinct to communicate with Putin strikes me as much more beneficial than detrimental.

If Trump can survive the deadwood (from both parties) and much of the press - he has a real opportunity to influence real change with regard to not only the subject of this thread but also the future trajectory of this country for years to come.

"We're not Superman, we're Clark Kent. Fortunately, everyone else is Jimmy Olsen." -- Ranger in documentary about Mogadishu BHD incident.

Pat

This^^^^^^^^^

It's human nature. Everyone thinks they can change it with God or with laws. But when it gets down to the bottom rung of Hell, everyone realizes that they are it for themselves and by themselves and they'll do anything to survive. Libs and the religious think they can change nature.

If evolution is the problem, then neither laws nor religion can be the solution. No law can get your dog to not kill that squirrel and God made the dog that way, so you can't tell the dog that killing the squirrel is a sin.

This isn't just an individual thing... every major city clearing operation in Iraq erred on the side of thorough urban renewal through firepower. When stomping a city in 2005 an armored unit had a house IED that had some sort of chemical weapon in it slime a squad. They shortly thereafter lost a couple of tanks from underside IEDs, same neighborhood. Everyone pulled back and proceeded to hammer that section of the city with MLRS, artillery, tank main guns, and air dropped ordinance. Did they target discriminate? Sure... they aimed for the buildings. There wasn't a lot of hand wringing over the possibility that the civilians hadn't evacuated fully. We got hit by a VBIED the same day, it was a fun place.