Afghanistan

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

You negotiate first with the CCP.  You can’t negotiate with the Taliban because you cannot negotiate with irrational zealots that want to destroy you.  You destroy them.

 

I see. North Korea?   How about them. 
 

A. Negotiate

B. Nuke

[TSOL]

11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Yes they do.  And even if they didn’t pose an immediate threat, America is supposed to stand against threats to humanity.

Nope.  Hundreds of thousands of troops.  Until the job is done.  Only reason we’d lose is if we give in to folks like you that want to turn America into a weakling.

 

 

We learned our lesson in Viet nam. Russia lost after 25 years in that region and we lost after 20. 

 

The lesson is, don't stick your big dick in the sand of someone else's desert. 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

I see. North Korea?   How about them. 
 

A. Negotiate

B. Nuke

I go in with forces today, either ground or air as needed, and take out their missile launch capacity.  And if they ever launch a nuclear device I follow in kind without question.

Just now, TSOL said:

 

 

We learned our lesson in Viet nam. Russia lost after 25 years in that region and we lost after 20. 

 

The lesson is, don't stick your big dick in the sand of someone else's desert. 

So your answer when they start enslaving and beating and killing women and children and all those who do not go along with them, when the genocide starts, is to shrug your shoulders?  Not acceptable.

[SCBills]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Let’s take a few of these.  Biden is wrong on Afghanistan, no question.  The border is no better or worse because we refuse to do what’s needed, arrest those who employ undocumented immigrants and deal with the countries and their drug cartels and such that force people to flee for their lives to try and get here.  Crime rates are high because mayors and cities refuse to let police do what they need to do, because police refuse to weed out the bad apples that sew so much distrust, and because pastors and other inner city leaders refuse to guide the youth correctly.  The teaching CRT thing is abject nonsense framed up by Trumpists looking for a bizarre issue; secondary schools do not teach CRT and parents are shamefully using their own kids as political pawns.  The current administration has a great plan for Covid:  they are called vaccines but again the Trumpists and other morons (and that includes minority groups in the inner cities) refuse to listen to reason and science and instead put up false boogeymen.  And I haven’t followed the Africa thing.

The border was very clearly better under Trump. The Remain in Mexico Policy worked.  To say there is no difference between now and then is delusional.  
 

“Crime rates are high because of the bad apple police”…. Ok. 
 

Minorities are against CRT.  Most of America is against CRT.  But it’s just the most elaborate boogeyman psy-op ever ever created by “Trumpists” into making you believe something that does not exist… yet teachers and social justice leaders all admit it exists.  You and Joy Reid alone know the truth of this elaborate hoax. 
 

Amazing plan.  Department of Homeland Security listing those against mandates as “terror threats”, flirting with banning interstate travel and pressing corporations into vaccine mandates, while openly fighting with a Governor and leaving a border wide open that sees a 25% positivity rate coming across.  I can’t see how that isn’t just the most full proof, trustworthy plan ever concocted.  
 

At least you didn’t attempt to deflect on the stagnant economy in what should be a roaring recovery and household crushing inflation.  
 

Some ancillary points you made have some merit, but you’re not open to seeing how bumbling and polarizing this Administration has been on, pretty much, everything.  
 

When all aspects of American life that fall under the Presidents purview are going backwards, he has to take some blame.  I asked if anything is better under Biden?  Well… anything?  

[Commsvet11]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You negotiate first with the CCP.  You can’t negotiate with the Taliban because you cannot negotiate with irrational zealots that want to destroy you.  You destroy them.

No I have faith in our military.  They are the finest fighting force the world has ever seen.  

You have no idea what your talking about.

 

You have never served nor have you ever been to the Middle East.

 

To you this is just like the game risk, a bunch of colored pieces of plastic for conquest, when the reality is much much more complex.

 

You think we were just jerking off in the sand and mountains for past twenty years? 

[TSOL]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

So your answer when they start enslaving and beating and killing women and children and all those who do not go along with them, when the genocide starts, is to shrug your shoulders?  Not acceptable.

 

My answer is, I don't want young American men coming home in boxes and missing limbs. This isn't an action movie. 

 

Losing ten, or hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in a region that needs to handle their own problems isn't the answer. 

 

Think of the protests that would happen, think of the stigma those young soldiers would come back with. Again, think about Viet nam. War is brutal 

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Yes they do.  And even if they didn’t pose an immediate threat, America is supposed to stand against threats to humanity.

Nope.  Hundreds of thousands of troops.  Until the job is done.  Only reason we’d lose is if we give in to folks like you that want to turn America into a weakling.

But America is a weakling.  A big spending weakling but a weakling nonetheless. We allocate almost $800B to the defense budget and all I hear is constant cries about things like the Russian threat and how we need to spend more.  And that doesn't include all the funds for intelligence agencies that allocate more resources for spying on American citizens to identify "domestic terrorists" than they do gathering intelligence on our foreign adversaries.  And what do these adversaries spend?  Russia, about $50B.  About the same as the Saudi's and I'm not staying up at night worrying about the security threat posed by the Saudi military.  So the U.S. spends about 16 times more on defense annually and I can only conclude we're not getting our monies worth here.

 

Look at the Pentagon brass that has been Woked-Up.  Maybe instead of focusing on diversity and system racism these ass clown generals should worry about how to win a war against a bunch of guys wearing sheets with 40 year old weapons hiding in caves.  You think there's any alignment in their mindset and the mindset of the fighting men and women on the ground in places like Afghanistan?  Why any rank and file soldier would have any confidence in any strategy or battle plan devised by these "leaders" is incomprehensible.   

 

I'm not opposed to your idea.  I'm just opposed to the idea of letting our current Pentagon leadership having any hand in defining the strategy for anything because their incompetence has already cost more lives than necessary and over $2.2 Trillion pissed down the hole for basically nothing to show for it.  Except making a lot of defense contractors very rich and setting up their next job assignment after they retire from the military.

[Chef Jim]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I go in with forces today, either ground or air as needed, and take out their missile launch capacity.  And if they ever launch a nuclear device I follow in kind without question.

 

You’re not just a hawk you’re an insane hawk. 

[SCBills]

I think most Americans are of the mindset that our time in Afghanistan needs to come to an end.  Enough is enough.  
 

I think most Americans also believe that we could have exited without immediate chaos and immediate Taliban takeover.  
 

Clearly the Afghan forces were never going to hold against the Taliban, but optics-wise, on the global stage… this did not need to happen like we’re seeing now.  

[oldmanfan]

21 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

My answer is, I don't want young American men coming home in boxes and missing limbs. This isn't an action movie. 

 

Losing ten, or hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in a region that needs to handle their own problems isn't the answer. 

 

Think of the protests that would happen, think of the stigma those young soldiers would come back with. Again, think about Viet nam. War is brutal 

Then we disagree.  You seem to think we should just let religious zealots keep growing their base and destroying people.  They won’t stop.  The longer we wait the worse it will be.

 

I don’t say what I say lightly.  I have the utmost respect for anyone who wears the uniform.  I lived through Vietnam.  It was indeed brutal.  I was just young enough to not have to be in the draft lottery.  But that was about communism and what political philosophy was best.  The Taliban are about taking over the world and converting them to their twisted version of Islam, and wiping out those who aren’t zealots.

22 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I think most Americans are of the mindset that our time in Afghanistan needs to come to an end.  Enough is enough.  
 

I think most Americans also believe that we could have exited without immediate chaos and immediate Taliban takeover.  
 

Clearly the Afghan forces were never going to hold against the Taliban, but optics-wise, on the global stage… this did not need to happen like we’re seeing now.  

I agree with your view.  Clearly I would deal with it differently but this is where the country is.

26 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

You’re not just a hawk you’re an insane hawk. 

Oh, so do you think the answer is to talk about how much we are “in love” with the lunatic Korean dictator?

 

They laugh at us over there, and the first chance they’ll attack.  You can’t deal rationally with irrational people.  You take them out before they hurt you.

[TSOL]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Then we disagree.  You seem to think we should just let religious zealots keep growing their base and destroying people.  They won’t stop.  The longer we wait the worse it will be.

 

I don’t say what I say lightly.  I have the utmost respect for anyone who wears the uniform.  I lived through Vietnam.  It was indeed brutal.  I was just young enough to not have to be in the draft lottery.  But that was about communism and what political philosophy was best.  The Taliban are about taking over the world and converting them to their twisted version of Islam, and wiping out those who aren’t zealots.

 

 

Hey, I'm an old time hard ass too, I'm willing to fight for what's right. But the problems in the the middle east are thousands of years old. We have to be logical about this. 

 

We aren't going to solve those problems with bombs and tanks 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 8/10/2021 at 7:57 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

You make a lot of great points.  And I agree with most of it.  But I think from the beginning defeat in Afghanistan was inevitable.  Its not called "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.  Its essentially a tribal society without any real concept of a powerful central government.  Defining one and setting it up based on some model of democracy was bound to fail.  And most of the "hostiles" just went over the border to Pakistan just waiting it out moving in and out of the country when required.  Once the primary mission was completed the decision should have been made to split.  But the DOD and the Pentagon never let a good opportunity to expand the defense budget go to waste.  So 20 years later an epic fail and in steps China and Russia.  Who could have seen that coming?

 

I have concluded US Middle East policy is based on the maintenance of "chaos", support for the State of Israel, and the continuation of the PetroDollar system of trade settlement in the oil markets.  In fact, I'd suggest that maintaining the global reverse and trade settlement status of the US Dollar is the fundamental objective of US foreign policy.  Its the system that creates foreign demand for US treasury paper and dollars.  Its the privilege to "print money" that no other country has.  Its the privilege that allows the US Congress and Presidents to pass multi-trillion dollar deficit spending bills without having to worry about where all that money comes from.  The reserve/trade settlement system is something Iran, Iraq, Libya and just about every other country that gets attacked or sanctioned has or is trying to remove themselves from participation.  It something the Saudi's still support.  That support is enhanced by US "protection" of the monarchy and the monarchies decisions to spend some $50B on defense spending.  A little less than what Russia spends.  This arrangement is just a traditional protection racket.  The US government protecting Saudi interests by refusing to declassify incriminating 9/11 information is one example of an element of this arrangement.  A government protecting a foreign government and its citizens that have committing terrorist and criminal acts against its own citizens.  What democratic government would do that?   

So US foreign policy is simply "follow the rules we set or else".  If you don't then political, economic, and if necessary either direct or indirect force through either the military or intelligence agencies will be applied to your nation and government and the most likely outcome will be the people currently in charge will be out of a job soon.

 

So while I agree with the Imperialism view who is calling the shots in the US?   Its not the political parties or the administration in power.  If you look at the political views of the Trump administration vs. the Biden administration you'd expect to see some tangible difference in their foreign policy approach.  But you don't.  In fact you see Biden's budget proposals actually looking to increase defense spending above what Trump budgeted. This appears in conflict with the "progressive" nature of the administration.  As they have no problem blowing up people of color on the international front and yet present themselves as the champion of minority rights domestically.  People are people no matter which side of the line on the map they stand on.  But policy never changes from one administration to another no matter the spot on the political spectrum those administrations represented. 

And truth be told, Trump wasn't impeached and harassed for 4 years because of some ethical, moral, or legal violations of law and the constitution.  He was harassed because he threatened the power of this establishment and pushed for policy change they saw as a threat to their agenda and power.  So there's an underlying force controlling the government and policy.  Some call it the establishment or the deep state.  Who's behind it all?  Some say the 1% or the .1%, the Davos crowd, Soros's NWO.  Me, I can't say I am sure.  I'm interested in getting some perspectives on this. 

 

What also seems strange is the current left supports this Imperialist model by bringing it home and imposing it on the domestic population.  There doesn't seem to be any issues or moral and ethical questions about imposing restrictions and punishment for non-compliance on US citizens through unilateral and undemocratic edicts and proclamations through the executive branch via executive orders or agency pronouncements.  So how can that be reconciled with their expressed woke and social justice views as "domestic imperialism" seems just fine to them.

 

Thank you for mentioning petrodollars! Yes, a huge component of American imperialism involves the maintenance of the dollar as the dominant international reserve currency. The petrodollar system best explains why we do what we do in places like the Middle East and Venezuela.

 

I see politicians in America as mostly controlled by their list of campaign donors. The voting constituents matter, too, but only to a much smaller extent. These campaign donors ultimately comprise the top of the “establishment.” Regarding foreign policy decisions, the “establishment” are usually executives and major shareholders within defense contracting companies and energy companies. This particular power network also extends into banking, media, and important government positions throughout the military and the executive branch (i.e. the “deep state”). Note that progressive politicians who don’t accept corporate donations are still subject to establishment influence so long as they choose to operate within the Democratic Party. Their political career advancements depend on acquiescing to more powerful party members who DO take the corporate money.

 

I never viewed Trump as someone outside the establishment. He certainly used populist rhetoric to get elected. He certainly was a less reliable puppet for the establishment than anything Hillary Clinton would have been, and so that unique element of chaos in Trump’s personality explains why Hillary was preferred in 2016 and why Trump was Russiagated. Nevertheless, Donald Trump is an over-the-top narcissist and egomaniac. Someone like that was inevitably going to rule as an American supremacist and thus wield U.S. military hegemony without compunction.

 

On 8/10/2021 at 8:00 AM, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks Kay, and yes I skimmed your latest manifesto….but I stand by my original post and believe it’s YOU who took this in a different direction. The thread and the immediate responses were about ‘why’ and the ‘worth’ of going to Afghanistan…not, as you say, about why we stayed for so long. And, finally if this was about American imperialism as you say then why isn’t this the United Kingdom of America? We didn’t colonize any of the places we’ve attacked, fought, or defended (Germany, Japan, Iraq, Vietnam). That’s the unique nature of American policy. It’s what makes us so different from other historical ‘empires’. It’s also what makes our policy so darn difficult to pull off successfully. Heck it’d be a whole lot easier to move in and own the place, but we don’t. We try to give a better place to the people of each country while running out the regime responsible for their plight. Lastly, the comment about ‘brown’ people is off base, gratuitous, and offensive. Our military actions when looked at over the long arc of history have been color blind.

 

In Niagara Bill’s original post and in subsequent posts of his, he repeatedly refers to “20 years” and questions why the U.S. was there for such a lengthy amount of time. But whatever. No need for us to belabor this point!

 

So are you seriously trying to make the case that our country is not an imperialist one?? You are familiar with the concept of “soft power,” correct? I know you are aware that we still have military bases in Germany, Japan, and Iraq (and probably Vietnam too if we had won there). This sentence of yours deeply concerns me: “We try to give a better place to the people of each country while running out the regime responsible for their plight.” Any inclusive study of U.S. intervention cases in Latin America (especially since the beginning of the Cold War) and in the Middle East (particularly since the energy crisis of the 1970’s) will reveal to you everything that is so horribly incorrect with that statement. Sometimes we are the source of the problems. Often, we create new ones and then leave the places in worse shape. I suppose “try” was the operative word in your sentence.

 

No, I will not retract my “brown people” remark because I do not sugarcoat history or politics. And what a curious place to take a stand on politically correct language, Mr. Trump Voter! If you must, read “brown” people as “foreign” people in my previous post. I will only slightly concede that the United States has been a bit more color blind during its modern (i.e. post-WW2) foreign policy history. Were it not for Soviet nuclear deterrence, then yes, we likely would have treated white Eastern Europeans in the same patronizing and often dehumanizing manner that we treat everyone else.

 

 

On 8/12/2021 at 9:53 AM, Tenhigh said:

I agree with you on the original motives for entering the war.   Living in NYC at the time even my furthest left friends were in support of the effort. People were scared and angry, and rightly so. 

But I think the shortsighted plan in Iraq is a large part of what has led to our overstay in Afghanistan.   America desperately wants to look like the good guy/world police, and after the fiasco that became of Iraq, bailing out on Afghanistan wasn't a face that we wanted to show the world.  

 

Yes, agreed. Afghanistan is a classic lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The entirety of the war on radical Islamic terrorism has been shortsighted. The first step in winning any war should be understanding the enemy. Americans have been repeatedly told that the enemy is driven entirely by religiosity and psychopathy. We are the clearly defined good guys, they are the clearly defined bad guys, and the real world is an arena where these polar opposites battle each other like in some sort of superhero movie.

 

I suppose that’s a perfectly good explanation of international relations for the type of adult children inclined to still sleep with fuzzy reassuring Disney stuffed animals in their beds (um…wait, not that there’s anything wrong with that!). It’s also a good enough explanation for people who don’t live in those affected foreign places, who don’t serve in any of the U.S. armed forces, or who have vested interests in the American military-industrial complex.

 

Mature and rational and empathic adults, meanwhile, who actually want to “defeat” terrorism (however that may be defined) are at the very least willing to go back and study Osama bin Laden’s messages so to learn more about their recruitment tactics. He was quite transparent in his long-term intent to bankrupt America by drawing her into unwinnable wars abroad, with Afghanistan a stated focal point in the same way that he viewed it to be for the Soviet Union during the 1980’s. On 9/11/01, bin Laden attacked American symbols for three of the four major components of imperialism: economic exploitation (World Trade Center), military aggression (Pentagon), and political leadership (Capitol Building, which was the target of Flight 93). The fourth component is cultural indoctrination, but any American symbol of it (Hollywood Hills sign?) was left unscathed on that day. Why? Just my speculation: to minimize the “war of cultures” aspect of the terrorism and instead highlight the American imperialism aspect of the war, thus helping to further isolate the U.S. from world allies already annoyed with our “world police” complex.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, TSOL said:

 

 

Hey, I'm an old time hard ass too, I'm willing to fight for what's right. But the problems in the the middle east are thousands of years old. We have to be logical about this. 

 

We aren't going to solve those problems with bombs and tanks 

I am an independent politically, but will readily admit I am very conservative when it comes to things like foreign policy and law enforcement.  I just think America should stand for humanity and fight to protect those who would be wiped out by genocide.  I think that’s what the Taliban will do.

4 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Thank you for mentioning petrodollars! Yes, a huge component of American imperialism involves the maintenance of the dollar as the dominant international reserve currency. The petrodollar system best explains why we do what we do in places like the Middle East and Venezuela.

 

I see politicians in America as mostly controlled by their list of campaign donors. The voting constituents matter, too, but only to a much smaller extent. These campaign donors ultimately comprise the top of the “establishment.” Regarding foreign policy decisions, the “establishment” are usually executives and major shareholders within defense contracting companies and energy companies. This particular power network also extends into banking, media, and important government positions throughout the military and the executive branch (i.e. the “deep state”). Note that progressive politicians who don’t accept corporate donations are still subject to establishment influence so long as they choose to operate within the Democratic Party. Their political career advancements depend on acquiescing to more powerful party members who DO take the corporate money.

 

I never viewed Trump as someone outside the establishment. He certainly used populist rhetoric to get elected. He certainly was a less reliable puppet for the establishment than anything Hillary Clinton would have been, and so that unique element of chaos in Trump’s personality explains why Hillary was preferred in 2016 and why Trump was Russiagated. Nevertheless, Donald Trump is an over-the-top narcissist and egomaniac. Someone like that was inevitably going to rule as an American supremacist and thus wield U.S. military hegemony without compunction.

 

 

In Niagara Bill’s original post and in subsequent posts of his, he repeatedly refers to “20 years” and questions why the U.S. was there for such a lengthy amount of time. But whatever. No need for us to belabor this point!

 

So are you seriously trying to make the case that our country is not an imperialist one?? You are familiar with the concept of “soft power,” correct? I know you are aware that we still have military bases in Germany, Japan, and Iraq (and probably Vietnam too if we had won there). This sentence of yours deeply concerns me: “We try to give a better place to the people of each country while running out the regime responsible for their plight.” Any inclusive study of U.S. intervention cases in Latin America (especially since the beginning of the Cold War) and in the Middle East (particularly since the energy crisis of the 1970’s) will reveal to you everything that is so horribly incorrect with that statement. Sometimes we are the source of the problems. Often, we create new ones and then leave the places in worse shape. I suppose “try” was the operative word in your sentence.

 

No, I will not retract my “brown people” remark because I do not sugarcoat history or politics. And what a curious place to take a stand on politically correct language, Mr. Trump Voter! If you must, read “brown” people as “foreign” people in my previous post. I will only slightly concede that the United States has been a bit more color blind during its modern (i.e. post-WW2) foreign policy history. Were it not for Soviet nuclear deterrence, then yes, we likely would have treated white Eastern Europeans in the same patronizing and often dehumanizing manner that we treat everyone else.

 

 

 

Yes, agreed. Afghanistan is a classic lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The entirety of the war on radical Islamic terrorism has been shortsighted. The first step in winning any war should be understanding the enemy. Americans have been repeatedly told that the enemy is driven entirely by religiosity and psychopathy. We are the clearly defined good guys, they are the clearly defined bad guys, and the real world is an arena where these polar opposites battle each other like in some sort of superhero movie.

 

I suppose that’s a perfectly good explanation of international relations for the type of adult children inclined to still sleep with fuzzy reassuring Disney stuffed animals in their beds (um…wait, not that there’s anything wrong with that!). It’s also a good enough explanation for people who don’t live in those affected foreign places, who don’t serve in any of the U.S. armed forces, or who have vested interests in the American military-industrial complex.

 

Mature and rational and empathic adults, meanwhile, who actually want to “defeat” terrorism (however that may be defined) are at the very least willing to go back and study Osama bin Laden’s messages so to learn more about their recruitment tactics. He was quite transparent in his long-term intent to bankrupt America by drawing her into unwinnable wars abroad, with Afghanistan a stated focal point in the same way that he viewed it to be for the Soviet Union during the 1980’s. On 9/11/01, bin Laden attacked American symbols for three of the four major components of imperialism: economic exploitation (World Trade Center), military aggression (Pentagon), and political leadership (Capitol Building, which was the target of Flight 93). The fourth component is cultural indoctrination, but any American symbol of it (Hollywood Hills sign?) was left unscathed on that day. Why? Just my speculation: to minimize the “war of cultures” aspect of the terrorism and instead highlight the American imperialism aspect of the war, thus helping to further isolate the U.S. from world allies already annoyed with our “world police” complex.

Thank you for writing this.  You obviously put a lot of thought into it, and in turn it causes me to think through my positions more.

[SCBills]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I am an independent politically, but will readily admit I am very conservative when it comes to things like foreign policy and law enforcement.  I just think America should stand for humanity and fight to protect those who would be wiped out by genocide.  I think that’s what the Taliban will do.

There are many places, outside of just Afghanistan, where people are being wiped out by genocide.  
 

Africa, as a continent, is hosting a multitude of these events - but Africa holds no geopolitical advantages for America, so we don’t get too involved. 

 

China is literally putting people in camps and we barely address it as a nation. 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, SCBills said:

There are many places, outside of just Afghanistan, where people are being wiped out by genocide.  
 

Africa, as a continent, is hosting a multitude of these events - but Africa holds no geopolitical advantages for America, so we don’t get too involved. 

 

China is literally putting people in camps and we barely address it as a nation. 

Yeah, I think we should be standing up for those people as well.  

[SCBills]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

Yeah, I think we should be standing up for those people as well.  

I agree, but we can’t destabilize regions and risk our own citizens lives in doing so.  

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I agree, but we can’t destabilize regions and risk our own citizens lives in doing so.  

I understand your position.

[LeviF]

It’s time to ignore oldmanfan’s takes on foreign policy. Neoliberal chicken hawks had their day and failed spectacularly. The time for his strategy was in the 1950s and we passed. Sad as that is there’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube now. 

[TSOL]

I think we need to fortify and keep our own house in order before we go playing superhero around the world 

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, LeviF said:

It’s time to ignore oldmanfan’s takes on foreign policy. Neoliberal chicken hawks had their day and failed spectacularly. The time for his strategy was in the 1950s and we passed. Sad as that is there’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube now. 

Sorry but wrong.  You negotiate where you can, but you cannot negotiate with irrational people who are out to destroy you.  Trump supposedly cut a deal with the Taliban and they laugh at it now as they take over Afghanistan and slaughter people.  You live in a Pollyanna fantasy world.  

7 minutes ago, TSOL said:

I think we need to fortify and keep our own house in order before we go playing superhero around the world 

Ideally yes.  But when you are a superpower you have to be willing to use that power.