Biden Administration targets Iran-backed militias in Syria

Didn't take Biden long to show his true colours. Par for the course with any lefty though, big song and dance about how tolerant, peaceful, and progressive they are. Then they get into power, the masquerade stops and you see what they're really like.

The Americans have criticqued a lot of thugs recently.

One of the things I did like Trump raising was why the US so heavily funded NATO whilst most member states didn’t feel the need to even meet their minimal spending requirements .

Nobody does anything out of the goodness of their own heart.

However, the Americans twice last century had to spend a lot of blood an treasure baling Europe out twice. Had to be at the vanguard during the Cold War because time and time again countries couldn’t stand firm themselves.

This wasn’t trump deciding this. One major criticism of Trump was that he didn’t play by the normal rules. He raised concerns that were there, but were normally dealt with a bit more diplomatically in the past.

Theyve supported a lot more though which is the problem..

Meh this is a decades old issue and a rather complex one. Suffice it to say NATO helps America just as much as it helps Europe and every time the Europeans have looked to their own devices the Americans have **** the bed.. they cant have it both ways. Of course this completely ignores the fact they have ordered most Europeans to be peaceful and subservient.. again, they cant have it both ways.

Indeed they dont.

Again, this is a highly complex and long winded subject suffice it to say;
They bailed out europe once and only once. Their contribution in WWI was minimal.
WWII they only got involved when they had no other choice, the fact they were content to watch the continent fall to Germany (at which point not even America could have beaten them) is rather damning in my book. We need only look at the ex post facto rationalisation to 'save the jews' the see the dishonest portrayal of self interest pure and simple. As far as WWII goes for America they made a fortune (they didnt expend much) without WWII they would not have been the super power that they were.

Which ones in particular?

I’m afraid not a app on several of those points. (Apologies I don’t know how to do the different quotes.)

In WW1 the US role was pivotal in ending WW1. US material support prior to 1916/17 was helpful. But it was helpful to both sides . The Americans were after all neutral and happy to sell goods to both sides. In fact the American stock market was seen by some an an indicator of who the Americans thought would win. A German success resulted in the value of German financial tools increasing. A German loss saw their values drop.

The Royal Navies blockade of Germany and the German use of U boat warfare, gradually isolated the Germans from the US. The realisation by the old powers of the ascendancy of the US into a great power had always been a concern for the Germans.

Although tensions between the US and Germany has been increasing since the sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram of 1917 was one of the clinching points for driving the US into war.

With the end of hostilities in the east against Russia, Germany was able to redeploy vast amounts of manpower to the west in order to defeat both British, French and American troops. The spring offensive was a knock out blow against the allies. The Germans knew that once amber is had fully mobilised against them, they’d lost.

The spring offensive was a resounding success at the start. However, ever more quantities of American troops were thrown into the line. Their use was one of several factors that resulted in German defeat.

The Americans realised towards the end of WW2 the threat that Russia was becoming. During WW2, both Roosevelt and Churchill were very much focused on the immediate challenges of defeating the axis. They then realised too late that Stalin had been playing the long game. His almost complete penetration of US and British government was only realised at the end. That was one of the reasons why the pendulum swung the other way and caused Macatherism.

People can do things for non beneficial reasons. Often however, people will do things that are mutually beneficial. NATO is a prime example. The Americans have heavily funded NATO. It needed to begin with. Europe was in ruins.

However Europe hit quite happy getting somebody else to front the bill.

One area that I found quite interesting about Trump was the way he challenged the status Quo. The way he dealt with Syria, Iran , China,NATO, the EU and North Korea, didn’t show a particular change in US foreign policy. It shows a change in diplomacy more than anything else. I think that’s what shook people up a bit. Rather the change the rules to the game, he changed the style of playing. Liken it to the style in one day cricket is played versus test cricket.

Not a problem.

I would point out that selling arms is not what anyone considers the same as helping a side win the war. When people speak of assistance rendered they talk in terms of boots on the ground and in that regard the US's help, whilst welcome, was anything but decisive.

I dont disagree but what point is this serving sorry? Although i would point out that the US was considered one already and had been for some time. If an aloof one.

Again, i dont disagree per-se, merely that the US's contribution in terms of combat forces didnt help end the war in any meaningful context (as most historians will happily agree) it might have shortened it and given a moral boost but thats it. It was nothing compared to the effect they had in WWII.


Except that wasnt the case though.. As i said, American troops had an effect but they did not in any way, shape or form meaningfully win the war.

I'm not sure which bit this is in response to sorry, what point is this paragraph in service to?

Dubious, i've yet to come across a truly selfless act. All acts come from some corner of **** selfishness, that isnt a bad thing per-se merely a fact of life. When it comes to IR though nations act in their own interest only. If it benefits others or serves a longer term purpose so much the better. But to argue that NATO is some form of altruistic endeavour is simply incorrect at every single level.

Doesnt that rather apply to all countries? Either way, as i have said as nauseum, it is far from just the Europeans who benefit from it, although im inclined to agree with trump and macrons assessments on nato these days.

I'd contend it showed a lack of it, more a reversion to Bush's term as a rogue state than anything else. Disregarding international law, ignoring allies, committing a series of crimes etc. etc. etc.
As for the status quo, depending on whom you listen to he didnt really break from anything, more gave a screach to the whimper that the fruitcakes like Bolton, Pompeo and other terrorist sympathisers like them used to have. His entering into a war with Iran being a case in point - the economic warfare he is using being the sort that got the US bombed by the Japanese back in the day.

American troops played a significant part in stemming the German spring offensive. UKPlc and the French were busted flush. There were meaningful reserves left.

The Americans didn’t beat the Germans in WW1, but their troop contributions in 1918 made the victory happen.

You're welcome to that view but the facts simply do not support your thesis that America won WWI. Contributed, sure. Instrumental? No. Germany had already been bled white by the time the Americans arrived and the lack of any significant number of notable engagements rather aptly shows that their main contribution was psychological, not tactical. Dont forget that half of their troops arrived without any training or guns as well.

You're welcome to that view but the facts simply do not support your thesis that America won WWI. Contributed, sure. Instrumental? No. Germany had already been bled white by the time the Americans arrived and the lack of any significant number of notable engagements rather aptly shows that their main contribution was psychological, not tactical. Dont forget that half of their troops arrived without any training or guns as well.

American troop numbers were very important.

Germany had been bled dry as had the French and the British. But the Germans had also disengaged from the eastern front. The therefore had superior numbers.

Germany was wired upon the entry of the Americans that the allies would gain numerical advantages in numbers.

American didn’t win WW1.

The allies won world war 1.

Merely pointing out that the American troops deployments of late 1917 and 1918 were the final nail in the coffin.

The British and French armies were busted flush. Hence the huge gains the Germans made in their spring offensive.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56205056


That was quick...

Trump increased tensions way too much and Biden is probably made to continue those remarks lmao.

Obama's foreign policy significantly exacerbated Iranian influence in the region. However, whatever tension may exist, it really is exclusively the result of that deplorable regime - and not a reflection of the US.