Biden Administration targets Iran-backed militias in Syria

Well it's only the start of his term but we'll see.

Trump's Syria Strike just blew up a bit of abandoned airfield. No one died.

Solemsani was assassinated, still wrong but this is better than indiscriminate bombing.

Trump inherited Afghanistan and Iraq and repeatedly attempted and was partially successful on bringing troops home and leaving those conflicts but was stymied by Congress.

Trump is the most peaceful US president since Jimmy Carter.

I am well aware of all that.

I personally don't see what the big deal is over public execution but to each their own. I would happily see nonces and terrorists hung up by cranes.

You've also ignored my other more pressing points. I suspect because I'm right.

Democrats are generally weaker on the foreign policy front, although the last few Republican Presidents haven't exactly excelled in that area either. Biden & Harris are going to be far more focused on domestic issues and creating / maintaining international agreements (Paris Climate Change, JCPOA etc) than military action. Hopefully they won't make the same mistakes Obama did regarding Russia, which has proven that it's still a threat to the West. All his "reset" seems to have done is make the Russians bolder. That said, the PRC is far more of a threat to the US in the longer term, although I'd argue Russia will remain the UK's & Europe's primary antagonist.

No, they shouldn’t have them because their mindset is stuck in the 13th century.

Why because they hang people?

If that was the case they wouldn't be capable of acquiring nukes in the first place

No. Because Islam began 700 years after Christianity.

700 years ago Christianity was doing some rather horrific things in the name of religion. Fortunately those activities were limited to arrows, spears and swords.

A crusade mentality with the knowledge of how to split the atom worries me greatly.

Crusade mentality...

How many wars has Iran started in the last fifty years? Now how many have NATO started? 🤣

The only crusade in game is liberal internationalism.

I don’t know. How many wars has NATO started? I’m going to have to say zero. Although we can debate about the article 5 one.

I'll show you then:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#21st-century_wars

Afghanistan was a NATO article 5 mission backed up by UN security resolution by UN resolution 1386. There was of course quite a few non NATO members involved and the US continued their US only Operation Enduring Freedom. So. Not really started by NATO.

Gulf War 2. Again, not NATO. Backed by UN resolution 1441.

Drone strikes in Pakistan. Not NATO. US again. No real problem with that. From personal experience it was a pain in the area being shot at doing your job whilst you know W the bad guys would jus run over the border. I wouldn’t get too hung up on that though. FATA and SWAT areas are as about as difficult for us and they were for PAKMIL. PAKMIL lost an awful lot of their own guys operating in those areas. The US had the advantage of not having to put boots on the ground.

Somalia. Again UN sanctioned. Ethiopian troops however have been operating in Somalia for some time in order to keep the crazies at bay. On the positives though, Somalia is a lot more stable than it used to be. Somalia are beginning to live past 40 now, by a whole ten years.

Libya. Again, UN resolution 1970 and 1973. You’re correct. That one was NATO. It was mainly because a lot of NATO assets were on the doorstep. I think it’s fair to say quite a few wanted a bit of payback. However Gaddafi’s neighbours were more than happy to put the boot in.

Uganda? Been asked by the host nation. Not NATO.



Syria. UN sanctioned. Syria’s use of chemical weapons broke international law. Mari wasn’t involved in that. It did get involved in Turkey in operation active Fence. But that was help installing air defence missiles in Turkey. That was an NATO member asking other NATO members for help. You don’t want a civil war on your doorstep. It tends to destabilise your own country.

You could’ve gone back a bit more. NATO was getting a load of criticism for its involvement in the former Yugoslavia. One of my Sergeants hung himself not long after I’d joined up. He’d been involved in excavating the mass graves. The PTSD got to him.

US is part of NATO is it not? The whole point of Nato was to combat the USSR. It's completely outlived it's purpose.

You keep saying UN as if it means something. International law isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Regardless of whether you want to dress it up as UN approved (which doesn't apply to Iraq or Libya) the US has invaded far more states than Iran

I think there’s a slight misunderstanding here. A country’s foreign policy doesn’t shift over night just because a new leader comes into power.

What I find funny is that supporters of Biden have screamed and shouted about Trump because Trump was dangerous.

So far, Biden seems to be enacting exactly the same foreign policy issues.

Remember when they were criticising Trumps attitude towards China?

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/biden-s-trade-attack-on-china-will-reverberate-around-the-world-20210225-p575qj.html

You'd be surprised. Plenty of countries have seen radical overhauls of their foreign policy with a change of government. The fact Dems/Republicans are two sides of the same coin doesnt detract from that though.

They are indeed hypocrites.

Well, Americans are nothing if not consistant when it comes to liberally sprinkling foreigners with expensive weaponry.

The Americans are also happy to liberally sprinkled their cash as well.

There’s a lot of reconstruction and Aid been spent on other countries courtesy of the US taxpayer.

Maybe so but your inference that its from alturism is clearly beyond incorrect. USAID itself is exercised as part of its foreign policy and the funds directed from the DoD budget for reconstruction, nation building etc. are the epitome of self serving. The fact none of it has ever actually worked just makes it somewhat more ironic.
Then again, the moral onus is on them. If america slaughters tens of thousands of civillians and destroys every piece of infrastructure, basic humanity dictates its them who need to rebuild it. Contrary to Trumps moronic comments advocating piracy.

Marshall plan?
Lend lease?
NATO?
UN?

The Americans always seem to get criticised after they’ve dug deep.

Er i suggest you look into the first two if you think there was an ounce of altruismin those.. the destruction of Britains empire was a key plank in them, the fact we even got in was a minor miracle Simply read the work of Tombs and Stephens for a basic primer on how those two, in relation to Britain at least, were tailored to ruining Britain, in a manner of speaking. In the broader strokes they served to help America itself in several ways;
1) ensure they wouldnt get dragged into another war
2) Create markets at the time - who do you think the money was spent on?
3) Bind the worlds major economies to it
4) Keep the reds out and the europeans in their orbit
I could go on but i dont see the need to write a thesis on this when the point has been made.
NATO is equally not an altruistic endeavor, im not sure how anyone can even try to make that case? It is specifically designed to enhance America's security. The case in point being they're the only ones to ever physically use it.

Given the Americans themselves critique(d) all of those.. either way, my point was simply that they didnt do any of those out of the goodness of their heart and to be honest anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesnt know enough about any of the programmes or of American foreign and domestic policy to know better.

As a broader point though, you make it sound like they should get kudos for paying for being the worlds hegemon? That isnt how things work. If you want to be a super power with wide ranging power across the world and mould it to suit your interests you have to stump up the cash for it. It may help others but it primarily helps them. At least until the Chinese checked them.