[robomartin]

These conversations are always interesting. Most treat the world as a single variable problem when, in reality, it is an exceedingly complex multivariate problem. And the Arab world sure is responsible for a large number of variables to decipher reality from a simple article that ignores so much.

Others have mentioned China as a benevolent actor of sorts. I find this interesting, maybe even laughable. China is not interested in coming to the aid of anyone in the world. I am not saying this to criticize China. I believe this is purely a statement of fact: They don't do that.

If we pulled it forward to modern times, China, for example, would not put it all on the table and lose nearly 500K lives to save Europe in a world war. They exist for one thing, and one thing only: To do business that benefits their nation. And that's it.

Again, not being critical, just stating what I believe to be a fact. I can also say that I envy that focus to some extent. It's "China first" to an extreme level.

OK, so, if we accept my premise: Who in the world would come to the aid of societies in need?

Let's also agree that perfection does not and will note ever exist on this planet. So, insisting on perfect interventions, actions and outcomes is not rational. We are --humanity-- not perfect.

Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role. Europe has self-decimated over the decades in terms of these capabilities. So, they can't. Africa? Asia? Who's left? Nobody.

Without a doubt, the Arab world --or Middle East in general-- has been a complex neighborhood for quite some time. Yet, things have gotten massively worse when a country like Iran sponsors murderous terrorists in the region and --as confirmed by the current conflict-- makes it a point to build-up a Middle-East-Annihilation arsenal of missiles that could have almost no other purpose than to obliterate everything around them and even as far as Europe.

And then you add the potential for some of these missiles carrying nuclear warheads.

And then you add a regime that simply has not been a rational actor.

So, what do you do? Do you wait until they are a nuclear power? Just like we waited for Hitler to come to power and kill millions of Jews and others? How much slack do you give a regime who's publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?

Without a doubt, the actions of the last month or so have not been perfect. They will not be. That's just reality. For example, I don't understand how sinking their entire navy, destroying their air force, destroying their anti-aircraft capabilities, some 20,000 sorties and targets later...we still have to make a deal with them to keep Hormuz open.

How does that happen? Drones and missiles, of course. What is remarkable is that you'd think we would have mitigated that danger to the point where the international waters of the strait would no longer be threatened. I don't understand why stupid reporters never ask this question. Well, I answered it right there.

And yet, to go back to the thought: Who else but the US could have even approached setting Iran back far enough to make the neighborhood less of an issue? China? They would never. They have happily been selling Iran weapons hardware and know-how. They do not exist to benefit the rest of the world. China first. That's the policy.

Can anyone imagine just how far worse --horrific, really-- this would be if Iran had gone nuclear in the next few months or couple of years? This would truly be unimaginable. We've already seen that NATO does not seem to be willing to engage and might be largely useless.

So, while not perfect, at this point in time I believe that this is one of those "treating the cancer early" scenarios. Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics. This, while not ideal, not perfect, not desirable, not pretty, is likely a good thing. Now it has to end with the right outcome, whose minimum definition is to denuclearize Iran. From there, it would be nice to see the wonderful Iranian people get out from under the oppression they have been living under for so long. If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful. Same with Venezuelans, BTW.

[jst1fthsdys]

> Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics.

No, they were not. No more than Saddam was close to having WMDs. Your entire premise is based on Israeli lies.

> How much slack do you give a regime whose publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?

How about you answer what we are supposed to do with regimes whose actual actions over the last 80 years have been the destruction of others? I'm talking about the US and Israel, btw.

> If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful

How many of them actually live in Iran? I'm sure the monarchists in LA love that the country is being leveled.

[robomartin]

> No, they were not.

How do you know that?

You do realize that the Iranian government (whatever remains of it) is actually insisting, as a condition, that their nuclear materials not be removed from the country?

[jst1fthsdys]

Burden of proof lies on the accuser. There is no proof. Just the same Israeli lie that Iran is weeks away, for years and years.

Demanding the sovereignty to enrich nuclear materials for energy purposes does not mean they have or want nukes. They won't be able to have the triad anyway, so you can argue having a nuke would be a strategic misstep since they can't guarantee MAD anyway. Better to be able to utilize your large rocket arsenal to wage war and not have people think you are launching a first strike.

[robomartin]

Stop trolling. You are speaking like the theocratic Iranian regime were saints building gardens and farms. C'mon. Who do you think you are fooling. They funded nearly all of the terrorism that has been causing so much mayhem in the Middle East and beyond. Now, if you are a Jew hater, so be it. There's nothing I can say to make you accept that Israel could not invent terrorists launching HUNDREDS of missiles into their territory. Yet, you are convinced that Iran is a good actor in world politics that was not within reach of something that could have launched us into and unthinkable version of WW3.

So be it. You are free to believe whatever you wish.

[xg15]

Yeah, if you only subscribe to the US view of the world, then of course the US are the good guys.

Problem is that the rest of the world increasingly does not follow that view anymore.

> Can anyone imagine just how far worse --horrific, really-- this would be if Iran had gone nuclear in the next few months or couple of years?

> I believe that this is one of those "treating the cancer early" scenarios.

There was nothing "early" about this. Iran's nuclear program exists for decades and somehow they were always "just a few weeks away" from a nuke.

[robomartin]

> Yeah, if you only subscribe to the US view of the world, then of course the US are the good guys.

Kindly show me where I said that "the US are the good guys".

There are no good guys in this crap. The world is a mess. And you cannot do any of this without things getting messy.

As for my opinion: As a US citizen, I would be perfectly fine with the US closing down all military bases in Europe and elsewhere. Bring it all home.

If Europe wants to defend their territory, they should do it themselves. The US funds somewhere around 70% of NATO. We should exit that thankless organization. Countries like Spain can face reality on their own. We can use the money at home. I don't know how much we spend on all the bases around the world. I'd shut them all down. Again, <insert country here> can invest their own citizen's taxes to defend themselves.

I'd say the same about the UN. We are spending billions to support that organization. Why? Let someone else host them, we'll gladly show up and vote.

In other words, if all the US has gained at an international level for what we have done, it's time to stop.

I don't have a problem with this at all. It isn't about being an isolationist. It's about what we are paying for and how we are being taken advantage of.

This is very similar with the situation we had with drugs. We pay for the R&D here and Europe (and others) enjoyed low drug prices because they did not have to pay for it. We subsidized low prices around the world. Now that is largely ending. Drug prices are going up around the world because we are no longer going to be taken advantage of in that domain. If you want the drugs we develop, pay your fair share of the R&D.

Is any of the above simple or perfect in concept and execution? No. Of course not. Name anything in international relations that is. Nobody can. It does not exist. But you certainly can try to do the right thing and end-up people hating you for it. Whereas those who do nothing don't have that problem. Funny how that works.

[orwin]

Drug companies pay for the trials, but most R&D is done in public institutions, and a big part in Europe (unless you count adding a piece of plastic to a ventoline cap to avoid loosing it a 'new drug', Europe public universities/labs are the sources of mire new drugs/molecule and techniques than anywhere else)

[phs318u]

You have repeatedly stated you’d be happy for the US to shut its bases in Europe and pull their troops out, and stop funding NATO. Do you believe it should take the same stance with Israel? If not, why not?

[robomartin]

I think it would be good for the world to see the reality of society around the world. So, yeah. Everything, everywhere at the same time.

Let's see Europe protect itself. Let's see the Middle East decide if they are a region that wants to support world terrorism or --on their own-- achieve peace. Let's see if China helps anybody.

I am perfectly comfortable with at least a one decade pullback. I see no reason for US citizens to subsidize countries all over the world to the tune of over $80 billion dollars and absolutely burn far more than that protecting Europe and others. Pull that back 100% and let's see what the world looks like. Invest that money internally on real infrastructure (not California bullshit projects that never get done), education, healthcare, housing and so many things we need far more than protecting the universe.

Yeah, I'd vote for that. I am sick un thankless nations always pointing a finger at the US. Let's eliminate that target and see how places like Spain and the UK and others do when they need help and we are busy watching it from across the ocean.

[phs318u]

Not that it matters to this discussion anymore but you avoided answering the specific question. Would you also vote for defunding Israel?

[licebmi__at__]

Nobody expects China to run the next protection racket. Because no matter how people try to whitewash, a protection racket is not something decent people (or countries) do.

[robomartin]

Sure. Read my prior comment. We (the US) should pull out of every nation, NATO and stop funding the UN. If the world needs help, each nation can face it on their own or team-up on a case-by-case basis to deal with their issues.

I don't claim the US to be perfect. Not even close. Yet, we cover 70% of Europe's defense (likely more), fund the UN to the tune of billions, etc.

It's 2026. I think it's time for everyone who thinks the US is evil to just step back and be responsible for their own shit. Fine with me. I'd rather invest that money here for infrastructure, education, affordable housing, healthcare, etc. No more miliary bases outside the US. No more funding for NATO or the UN. No more subsidies for dozens of nations.

[tzs]

> Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role.

Canada would like a word.

  US deaths in WW2: 420k
  US population in 1940: 132000k
  US death rate from WW2: 318/100k

  Canada deaths in WW2: 43k
  Canada population in 1940: 11300k
  Canada death rate from WW2: 380/100k

  US deaths in WW1: 117k
  US population in 1918: 103000k
  US death rate from WW2: 114/100k

  Canada deaths in WW2: 66k
  Canada population in 1918: 8100k
  Canada death rate from WW2: 814/100k

[robomartin]

Sadly, that Canada is not today's Canada.

[tzs]

More recently, in Afghanistan, Canada sent its military and incurred 0.5 deaths/100k population. The US military incurred deaths of 0.8 deaths/100k. US contractors took a hit of 1.2 deaths/100k.

The military death rates per 100k military members sent were 390/100k for Canada and 290/100k for the US.

[bdangubic]

even more sadly, that America would be rolling in its grave seeing today’s America…