KaiserJeep wrote:So I say we retire from the region, and let the Europeans deal with the Iranians. If they blow the oil fields up, the USA is better positioned and prepared than any other country to survive the ensuing crisis.
So let the Europeans deal personally with the Mullahs. I say we withdraw from NATO and pull back all our troops, and let the Europeans personally absorb all the nuclear attacks from the Mullahs. One way or the other, that will silence their incessant complaining.
Well, I must half-way agree with you, there.
There's a lot of strategic sense to start thinking about just pulling out of ALL of this. Out of Europe. OUT of the pacific. OUT of the middle east.
And here's what's interesting -- our allies do not actually NEED us. They have their own armies. They have navies. We actually sold them to them, and they are all nicely equipped. They can handle things themselves, in our absence, and we are saved the great expense and blood of our own, and trouble of it all.
So, I do wonder.. in these Obama years, with his lack of action, you actually see the old allies figuring something else out instead. There have been cases of Saudi Arabia actually working with ISRAEl -- of all people -- on some things. If the USA is just gone, then strategically a KSA and Israel are partners, in opposing Iran.
And in the Pacific -- as we have pulled back, Japan has stepped up for its own defense so much more. And Japan, and Australia, are talking to each other more. **We actually do not have to be in all these places anymore, they actually can just do it themselves**.
Especially the Europeans -- they have more money than we do!!!!
Yet they get to just spend like 1% gdp on military and push all that burden onto us. Maybe we should back out of all these places, let them defend themselves, LET them have their wars -- just being selfish, you are right Kaiser, isolationism and the rest of the world going to hell in a handbasket would do nothing but enrich us and make us better off.
Everyone hates the USA for doing too much, yet they don't realize we would do so much better for ourselves if we really did just let the world suffer and muddle along and have its little wars -- we could be a city on a hill, the most safe and stable place on this entire planet, with all other corners of the globe encircled with troubles.
Our near abroad is nice and peaceful. Maybe we really don't need all this crap over there in Europe, in the ME, in the Pacific.
Having said the above -- I seriously don't mind if the USS Teddy Roosevelt gets a big stick out, the Iranian forces have had it coming ever since the hostage crisis.
P.S. Just on second thought, regarding isolationism -- Kaiser, the muslim extremist terrorists are actually considered a top threat for Europe, UK, Australia, and us. So that's part of this thing about Yemen. AQAP is based there, they did those attacks in France. If we've decided we have to fight AQAP, then that means we have to kick Iran out of Yemen so we can get back in there to keep a lid on Al Queda.
My own personal opinion is that muslim extremist terrorists are actually a bigger thread to the rest of the West, than to us. We probably really could be neutral, and rather than bother us, the muslim extremists would bother Europe and Britain, that already have such large populations of disaffected muslims in the first place.
So it could go either way, but if we have committed to fighting the terrorism and standing with the allies, then yes you really do need to go clean up Yemen. The attacks in France were like a 9/11 for them. The attacks came from AQAP, in Yemen. Ergo, Yemen should be got a handle on, not just let it go for Iran to create some mess of a place where all the West's terrorist enemies can have base camps in.
