A short time ago, I forget who, posted that when ever somebody needed help in the world, it was always the good old USA that responded.

Essentially saying nobody else was willing to put out the brush fires, had the means to do so or was willing, so brush fires that happen on a regular basis, get somebodies attention. This of course earns the USA the dubious distinction of the world police man of western interest

I posted that in many situations the USA  often had a vested interest in the brush fire and might not always be the good guys when propping up a tin pot dictator.

This is an excellent example of propping up a tin pot dictator. According to this article [if it can be believed] he does not have the majority support of his country people. Of course the americians worry about Russia taking control of the entire country. 

Well golly:

The Russians did have control until Krushchiev [sp] gave it away. So why is the USA in such a lather to get involved. The author is correct. One might guess that the majority of citizens in the USA could give two figs about who controls what.

So go home and stay out of this country

What the citizens want is no more stupid little wars, and as the author correctly states, Trump was partially elected on a promise of no more wars. In fact he went so far as to risk publicly stating his admiration for Putin, which some called treason.

So: time to send a strong message of no more useless little wars. As history has shown, small wars can lead to big wars and many countries have the means to end civilization on the planet

It is always the leadership that causes our problems

Very sad and scary

Trouble is, Wayne, if we resign as the policeman, we might not like who they get for sheriff.

Oh yes, I agree with the sheriff comment and is exactly why the USA is the world policemen

The USA has volunteered to be the world policemen exactly because of this foreign policy of not liking the sheriff. Maybe so but is it a successful policy

Do you think Russia is building military might to attack or defend. Is china wanting to attack or defend. Is mutual destruction worth a pre-emptive strike???

Re: Russia the logical thinking is Russia does not want to attack. They have their hands full defending the home land. It is the constant push by NATO that causes Russia to be nervous about NATO intentions and build up military strength

Geopolitically, Russia should have more to worry about with china on their eastern border. China has a huge population and not enough land mass .Russia has the land mas just across the border. So: what did Russia do?? They welcomed the silk road and trade with china. Russia has the raw material and china has the labour pool. So far they are trying to do this with peaceful methods

What does NATO do. ?? NATO is seen as a threat to Russia. Poland wants upgraded hardware which could be either defensive or offensive

Now tell me who found a way to find a sheriff that both could accept and who acted in a hostile method, as in my sheriff is the only sheriff.

We have to accept we will not always get the sheriff we want. Heck that doesn't even happen in our own country

We learned a terrible lesson in Vietnam and did not get the sheriff we wanted

Guess what:  We currently trade with the new sheriff

There are times when the new sheriff acts aggressively toward us. Hitler comes to mind and we must take action

Do we have to get involved in Venezuala or every brush fire on the planet because we don't like the sheriff

We have to learn when to pick our battles and then be sure they are worth the fight and fight to win the battle Not all battles are worth the new sheriff. and not all new sheriffs are worth a battle.

Afganastan, Iraq, Syria was all a big mistake . Why did we not put blame where blame was supposed to be. At the footstep of Saudi Arabi. Would Russia have intervened if we had put the blame on the Saudi

Is it because we value a barrel of oil more than 1000's of human lives. Could we not spend the same money and develop home grown energy with no loss of human life

Seems to me we often choose the wrong sheriff for reasons that make us the enemy of a larger part of the world

How many enemies does Russia and china have compared to our country. Do they pick and choose the sheriff they want and then decide if the fight is not worth the gain. Do they watch somebody else get all bloody, choosing the new sheriff.

When Russia makes a mistake they cut their losses and with draw. The USA has to learn that picking sheriffs all over the world is a net losing battle and costs more than it is worth. 

Pick the battles and fight to win. Too many battles is poor decision making. Some battles are not worth fighting over who is the sheriff. Some battles just end up with more enemies than if nothing was done.

I often post about the person who only wanted to feed his family until an americian bomb took his family away

Then he wanted revenge against the American. That happens a lot. Was the bomb worth the end result