[dealforager]

I've worked at tech companies that despise helping the US military. Please understand that the world is complex and although all superpowers have done terrible things, helping the US is the only way our children will live in a peaceful world. This isn't about democrats or republicans, the future of humanity will be decided in the next decade.

[woodruffw]

Any abject suffering that occurs over the next hours, days, and weeks doesn't excuse the historical record of abject suffering imposed by the US military.

It's perfectly consistent to be opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and also reject the myth that the US's military is the only thing that maintains world peace.

[jollybean]

It's not a 'myth' that the US maintains world peace, it's a most obvious reality and it's disturbing that anyone wouldn't be able to see it plainly.

The world is not a 'peaceful place' with a bunch of wars now and again.

It's held together by force.

Peace is a balance of, and righteous management of power.

The US+NATO+Allies form the basis of that power. Unfortunately, without the US, that 'Team' would basically be dysfunctional and wouldn't really work.

The Panama Canal, Suez Canal, the Gulf, S. China Sea - all of it would be controlled by various regimes if it were not for US power basically keeping it all open for everyone.

Israel and Egypt the 'lynchpin' of peace in the ME is kept that way because of US power. All of he Middle East would be like Syria were it not for US/West.

Obviously Taiwan would be in China and Korea would be vanquished by N. Korea.

It's hard to know exactly how the cards would fall, but they would definitely fall one way or another.

Unfortunately, we don't have a solution for Ukraine, but thankfully, this will be mostly contained in Ukraine thanks to NATO.

[jacquesm]

> Unfortunately, we don't have a solution for Ukraine, but thankfully, this will be mostly contained in Ukraine thanks to NATO.

The same sentences were written two weeks ago with respect to Ukraine. You can't make any assumptions about what Russia will or will not do. Taking over the Suwalki gap could easily happen. The frog is best boiled slowly, and with ample time to get used to the new temperature.

[lnxg33k1]

Also because what Russia is doing right now is the same thing that US tried to do in the Bay of Pigs, settling a puppet government in a portion of a country then make it ask for help? That's CIA 101

[azinman2]

How many hundreds of thousands of Americans troops surrounded Cuba during bay of pigs?

Is not the same thing.

[lnxg33k1]

And that's what's great about the western world, you can't have a maniac at the top moving 200k soldiers without congressional approval and discussion? That's why if I have to pick between a country like US that is intermittently maniac and a country like Putinstan where a maniac has to decide that million of people have to suffer in and out the borders, then I would always pick the US

[bigthymer]

> And that's what's great about the western world, you can't have a maniac at the top moving 200k soldiers without congressional approval and discussion?

I guess we're ignoring the 200k+ troops sent to Iraq w/o a declaration of war by Congress? I will agree with you on one point though...the President wasn't a maniac.

Excerpt:

"At 5:34 a.m. Baghdad time on 20 March 2003 (9:34 pm, 19 March EST) the surprise[130] military invasion of Iraq began.[131] There was no declaration of war.[132] The 2003 invasion of Iraq was led by US Army General Tommy Franks, under the code-name Operation Iraqi Freedom,[133] the UK code-name Operation Telic, and the Australian code-name Operation Falconer. Coalition forces also cooperated with Kurdish Peshmerga forces in the north. Approximately forty other governments, the "Coalition of the Willing," participated by providing troops, equipment, services, security, and special forces, with 248,000 soldiers from the United States, 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers and 194 Polish soldiers from Special Forces unit GROM sent to Kuwait for the invasion.[134] The invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 70,000.[135]"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

[lnxg33k1]

I think your idea of lack of a declaration of war ignores that a year before it was voted by congress, on the basis of: The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]

    Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
    Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
    Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
    Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
    Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
    Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
    Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
    Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
    The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
    The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
    The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
    Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...

And I would put some emphasis on the state of the relation on: Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

[eganist]

This isn't an intelligence organization or unlabeled fighters. This is an actual, state-backed military and a declared invasion.

[denton-scratch]

It's not a declared invasion. I've read headlines that said Russia had "declared war"; in the body of the article, it turns out that Russia has sent a "peacekeeping force" into Donbas. There's been no declaration of war. Russia has responded to requests for help from the rebel leaders in Donetsk and Luhansk.

I mean, there is a war; Russia has been bombing and rocketing Ukrainian military installations all over the country. But it's not a declared war.

[brightstep]

I don’t think the residents of an invaded country care very much if they are killed by regular armed forces or intelligence. They’re dead either way.

[lnxg33k1]

Yes, you're right, but it could be interesting to understand that for the living in order to prevent to be made dead by regular armed forces or intelligence in the future, in fact right now it's mostly the living that are trying to understand what happened/is happening

[lnxg33k1]

Yeah but my point was that the declared invasion is happening due to the rebels that took over Donetsk and Lugansk asking for help from Putin to defend themselves from the ukrainian govt

[distances]

That is a very naive take. It's abundantly clear that Kremlin orchestrated the rebel areas to "ask for help" so they have a pretext for the invasion. I mean that was so transparent that I honestly thought it was only meant for Russian local audiences and absolutely nobody would buy that in the West.

[lnxg33k1]

.-. I am not sure where or what point in my writing made you think that this fact was not very "abundantly" clear to me

[woadwarrior01]

The Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 was similar to Bay of Pigs (with the difference that the former succeeded, while the latter failed miserably). The current situation is a full blown war and nothing less than that.

[wernercd]

"abject suffering" And what about some of the most peaceful decades in human history? That means nothing, eh?

"only thing" Not the only thing by any stretch... but definitely a major reason and a hugely stabilizing force.

[woodruffw]

> "abject suffering" And what about some of the most peaceful decades in human history? That means nothing, eh?

The US, in a brief moment of national clarify, participated in exactly two just wars in the last century. The outcome of one of those wars was the establishment of liberal democracies across Western Europe, which is indeed a tremendous stabilizing force. But it's not clear to me that the US gets to claim outsized credit for the subsequent years of peacemaking under those nations.

[watwut]

Us participated in Vietnam War too which would made it third War. In Korea War too, four. Plus, supported various guerrilas (taliban) and dictators materiály.

And that is me being lazy to lookup whether there were other conflicts.

[woodruffw]

I think you missed the "just" in "just wars."

The US has been in lots of wars over the last century; what I said was that only two were just.

[watwut]

Ah, I misread it as "just two wars".

[speedgoose]

US the only way for a peaceful world? You should read a bit on the USA history and its military conflicts and you may change your mind. Wikipedia is a good starting point.

[goldenshale]

The period of US hegemony from WW2 until today has by far been the most peaceful time in the history of civilization. Unlike previous super powers, the US did not take over any other countries or colonize by force. We have done many horrible things, like support dictators, invade Iraq based on lies (to depose a dictator), etc., but we have also supported people all over after natural disasters, helped with foreign aid to relieve famines, policed global trade to enable fair markets, and many other good deeds. It's definitely not the only way, and we could do much, much better, but show me another major country that you would prefer hold the reigns of global power?

[lopis]

Peaceful for who?? Certainly not for Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, South East Asia, Middle East. The US has absolutely imposed "peace" by force and by pushing its own agenda everywhere.

[flavius29663]

> Eastern Europe

I beg your pardon? Eastern Europe is eternally grateful to the US that they won the cold war allowing them to break free from the Big Bear. Nations comprising 100+ million people from Estonia to Bulgaria are living their golden ages right now, because of US.

[brightstep]

Sure the king has thrown some families in the dungeons, but show me which of his princes you’d rather see on the throne?

[MayeulC]

Not necessarily true. What do you make of pax romana? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana

[calf]

You're obviously a single child, if you think the only options are for one person to dominate another and vice versa.

[probably_wrong]

I resent the implication that the US military is the only reason the world is at peace, and I bet plenty of NGOs feel the same - if anything, the US military is the one that has been pushing for new conflicts. And while it's true that all superpowers have done terrible things, the difference with the US is that plenty of them have stopped doing terrible things since.

I was not born yet when Germany started WWII, but I was alive to see the US declare torture as a valid means of interrogation and bomb civilians with no repercusions. And my living relatives who suffered under a US-backed military coup may not be as quick to forgive either. Maybe your children will live in a peaceful world, but for many of us that's cold comfort.

[unityByFreedom]

We aren't sending troops to Ukraine so that's irrelevant.

[k41da]

Give it 72 hours. The news cycle is leading the announcements tomorrow and the announcements that will inevitably come next week. If the news is already talking WW3 (and yes, they are) then it won't be long before the UN deploys it's own "peacekeeping forces" and the world goes hot.

[BeefWellington]

I think right now in the west in general the appetite for getting hands-on in Ukraine is just not there.

As sad as it may be for Ukraine, they're going to have to do what they can to defend themselves with aid and supplies.

The one thought I have around this is Canada. Spitballing: There's a huge Ukrainian population there and the deputy PM has personal ties to the region. It's entirely possible, especially given recent events, that Trudeau decides it's politically expedient to get involved directly in some meaningful way. They'd also have to try to convince the other parties helping them maintain government. Even if that happens though, I suspect that won't make a difference to the outcome and the rest of NATO would look at it as a Canadian solo operation. I'd give this about a 0.001% chance of happening, maybe less. Any politician who got boots on the ground (barring some unforeseen change in circumstance) would probably be skewered public opinion-wise and be essentially kissing re-election goodbye.

[tablespoon]

> I think right now in the west in general the appetite for getting hands-on in Ukraine is just not there.

I hate to say it, but I agree. Germany sent Ukraine a few thousand hats to help them resist Russian aggression, for Christ's sake.

Western powers will drop a strongly worded letter in the mail and implement economic sanctions that'll do diddly squat to the Russian authorities, besides maybe push them into a closer alliance with China.

Honestly, the least they could have done is massed NATO troops in Poland, the Baltics, etc. and kept strategic ambiguity about whether they planned to actually use them (instead of explicitly announcing, like dumbasses, they weren't going to get involved in any way that would bother Putin).

> It's entirely possible, especially given recent events, that Trudeau decides it's politically expedient to get involved directly in some meaningful way....I'd give this about a 0.001% chance of happening, maybe less.

Definitely less. IMHO, if they were going to have to get involved, they would have needed to have been moving troops and equipment for quite some time. I don't think they've done that.

[raxxorrax]

The early sanctions might have been a mistake because there isn't much munition left. Canada could rename its national dish to Soulenskyy?

Honestly, while I admire the courage, it might be the better solution to lay down weapons.

[Lendal]

Don't hold your breath waiting for that UN "peacekeeping force" anytime soon. The head of the UN Security Council is Russia.

[tablespoon]

> Don't hold your breath waiting for that UN "peacekeeping force" anytime soon. The head of the UN Security Council is Russia.

Does that even matter? Isn't the more significant fact that Russia has veto on the Security Council?

[torstenvl]

Tangentially: Russian Federation and PRC never should have gotten the P5 seats. The USSR's P5 veto should require unanimous consent of former Soviet republics, and ROC's P5 veto should still be with ROC.

[MayeulC]

That, or there shouldn't be permanent seats at all.

[Natsu]

> Give it 72 hours.

Wasn't that the intel estimate on how long it'd take Russia to take over? I saw Biden's statement that he was sending thoughts & prayers while he watched this and would talk it over with world leaders tomorrow. Since the last few rounds of sanctions did nothing after Crimea, I don't see this changing things.

[unityByFreedom]

Who says 72 hours. My understanding is the territory is large and would be difficult to hold.

[zzt123]

The territory is relatively easy to overrun with speed - the defensible choke point is on the wrong side of Ukraine (for the Ukrainians). It is only occupation that can prove to be difficult, or even intractable.

[Natsu]

It's been 1 day, they're already in Kyiv and discussing surrender. I don't know the future, but it looks like the rest of the world had their pants down on this one so far, which seems surprising given the repeated warnings something was going down.

By the time there is a real response, it's looking like this may be over. Given that their urgency was "I'll talk to world leaders about what to do tomorrow" rather than "let's enact the plan we already prepared during the weeks of warnings" I think we know which way things are headed.

[99_00]

Did he just tweet thoughts and prayers or did Biden show his face?

[Natsu]

You can read the statement he made here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

Given that it's apparently not urgent enough to do anything but watch this on TV until morning, it doesn't look like a priority to me.

[8note]

This requires a very specific version of peace, where it's still peaceful for those in power to use violence against those who don't.

[justshowpost]

> helping the US is the only way

When people are convinced that there is only one way, then the propaganda worked.

[thatguy0900]

Russia is a openly currupt oligarchy dictator state and China runs slave camps and genocides. It seems to pretty much just be helping the US or the EU at this point. Honestly I would say EU over us in a ideal world, probably.

[Siira]

The EU’s the weakest of the powerful. I don’t think that’s not related to its more … progressive ideals.

[wyager]

Nuclear proliferation, like it or not, has done more for global peace than US military/trade hegemony. Ukraine gave up all its nukes in the 90s which is why this is happening now.

[landemva]

Libya was invaded after giving up nuclear in 2003. Clinton pushed for the invasion as Secretary of State, then she joked about the death on TV. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/27/clinton-po...

It should not be a surprise that North Korea refuses to disarm.

[wyager]

Of course. You would have to be insane to agree to denuclearize at this point; it's clear that this is the only strategy to avoid being steamrolled by US/Russia/China.

[zionic]

They gave up those nukes with the promise we would protect them.

That trick of ours won’t work again.

[Thorrez]

Was there a promise that the US would defend them?

I don't see that in the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

What I do see is a promise made by both the US and Russia to "[r]efrain from the threat or the use of force against [...] Ukraine." So Russia definitely broke the promise, and I don't see where the US broke it.

[asdff]

We would protect them. If Russia nuked Kyev goodbye surface of the earth. Likewise if Ukraine still had nukes and sent one at moscow.

[Johnny555]

I'd be surprised if the USA started an all out nuclear war no matter what Russia did to Ukraine.

[swader999]

I could see it happening accidentally.

[nradov]

The US would not retaliate militarily if Russia used nuclear weapons against Ukraine. That is not part of US nuclear doctrine. Ukraine is not a treaty ally.

[rurban]

But they promised to protect the Ukraine. With the UK and China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

[creato]

No, they promised to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. You literally linked it.

[mdoms]

You're absolutely dreaming. USA is not a reliable ally.

[wyager]

The premise is not just that nukes are a deterrent against nuclear warfare, but also that nukes are a deterrent against conventional warfare. I'm not sure any country except israel is super explicit about this (cf Samson Option) but presumably the implicit or quietly explicit threat is there.

[xyzzy_plugh]

It's funny, or maybe sad, how so many people did not see this coming. All the propaganda and social engineering to get Biden associated with Ukraine so that when he tried to throw his hat in the ring, his own country will be alarmed.

Going to end up looking like a fucking 9000 IQ play by Russia here, but hopefully the world proves me wrong.

[shigawire]

If you pursue party of the internet susceptible to disinfo this is already what is being trotted out.

"Biden only wants to intervene because of Hunters business dealings!"

[freeopinion]

I'm not convinced. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan again, Syria, Peru, Mali, ...

When you say "world peace", do you mean European peace? California peace? Where is your world?

[Const-me]

I live in Montenegro. The country was part of Yugoslavia.

I spoke with a guy who fought that war. I asked him "do you think the war would have ended without American intervention?" and he responded "no, I don't think it would".

I wouldn't describe the country as a blooming economy, but it's peace here, for more than 20 years and counting.

[wyager]

None of those countries had nukes, right?

[freeopinion]

Sigh. India, Pakistan, Falkland Islands, Tibet, Israel, ...

And yes, in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Afghanistan again, Iraq, Syria, and others, one or more parties in the conflicts had nukes.

[wyager]

> in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Afghanistan again, Iraq, Syria, and others, one or more parties in the conflicts had nukes.

I don't care about the other parties in the conflict. Nukes stop you from getting invaded, not from invading. Afaik, none of these countries were nuclear when they got steamrolled.

[freeopinion]

The original argument was that nuclear proliferation has brought peace. Even if you argue that it has brought peace to countries that own nukes, you'd be wrong. Israel does not have peace. USA does not have peace. Russia does not have peace. Argentina tangled with the UK despite the UK's nukes. The Taliban has no fear of USA nukes.

[csee]

It does a lot for global peace right up until our extinction. We don't need thousands of nukes to maintain deterrence. We should reduce our nuclear stockpile to the smallest number that still maintains deterrence.

[mrec]

Ukraine never had the codes to use those nukes. They didn't give up a functioning deterrent.

[wyager]

Interesting, although I assume replacing the computer on an assembled nuke is pretty easy compared to bootstrapping a nuclear program or something.

[raxxorrax]

The most difficult part is probably the enrichment so a rearming these nukes could be manageable.

[cute_boi]

The nukes never belonged to Ukraine, unfortunately. It was always controlled by Soviet Union.

[paxys]

Ukraine did not have the ability to launch a single nuke. They didn't give up anything.

[sorry_outta_gas]

It's hard to say, right now it looks like it's just letting countries armed to the teeth with them dominate whoever they want

[thatguy0900]

Seems like an exageration. Do you think any country armed with nukes is dominating people as much as British empire, Romans, Mongols did? The fact that Russia (or China with Taiwan and Hong Kong) actually has to fight so hard for one country kind of shows they can't dominate whoever they want.

[freeopinion]

This reminds me very much of the slow motion train wreck leading into WWII. Germany had to fight hard in the same kind of political way back then, too. That was obviously pre-nuke. It takes a long time to build the many (logistical, psychological, political) facets required to lead your country down this path. With or without nukes.

To answer your question, yes. A country with nukes is dominating people as much as the British empire, Romans, and Mongols did? How is that even a serious question? With military forces spread through Korea, Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Poland, Lithuania, Arizona, Alaska, Dominican Republic, Cuba, you name it. From sea to shining sea, then another sea and another sea.

[k41da]

This is happening because the sanctions put in place on Russia during the Trump admin were undone haphazardly by Biden. Russia is moving strictly because it knows it has the EU by the short hairs on energy and after the afghanistan exit the US is in a very strategically weak position.

We should be grateful Ukraine does not have nukes. 12 hours ago the world might've gotten 4000C hotter if they did.

[Koshkin]

Russia wouldn’t have attacked then, that’s all.

[paxys]

Is what Russia is doing in Ukraine right now too different from the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[rectang]

It's certainly different from Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan by the United States was preceded by an attack by Al Qaeda on New York City. The attack by Russia on Ukraine is completely unprovoked.

[anonporridge]

You're right.

Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine is much more equivalent to America's unprovoked attack on Iraq.

[torstenvl]

I'm not aware of Ukraine kicking out weapons inspectors from known previous WMD sites, or bluffing about having CBRN weapons. The invasion of Iraq was bumbling and based on piss-poor intelligence, but the belief in a threat wasn't groundless. https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/World/Global-Ne...

The current Russian claims about Ukraine, however, do appear groundless, based on the consensus of international media.

[jdgoesmarching]

The belief in a threat was manufactured by cherry-picking any weak scraps of intelligence that could be assembled into a believable marketing pitch for an invasion. Your average mouthbreathing intel analyst wouldn’t recommend invading a taco stand based on the shady sources and thin reporting used to justify this war.

Source: Former mouthbreathing analyst

[macilacilove]

Although I am certainly not well informed, as I could not predict this scale of military operation, I'd like to say that "consensus of international media" is not worth much at times of war. Because I feel like there is never a lot of disagreement in media during such crises. Maybe after, when the situation calmed.

[scotty79]

It wasn't piss-poor intelligence. It was misinformation crafted specifically for the purposes of justifying invasion to USA voter.

[rectang]

It's a closer match than Afganistan at least, although I don't think that Ukraine under Zelenskyy is remotely similar to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Let's hope that Ukraine backfires on Russia at least as severely as Iraq did on the US.

[Fricken]

I feel like I'm being way too obvious here, but Al Qaeda is not Afghanistan or Iraq.

[rectang]

I also feel like I'm being obvious here: Al Qaeda was sheltered by Afghanistan during and after the attack on NYC. (I agree that there were essentially no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.)

[Fricken]

All the people who did the attack on NYC died in the attack on NYC. None of them went back to Afghanistan after flying planes into towers.

[pfisherman]

Actually reminds me a lot of the run up to Iraq ca 2003, which was a disaster for all involved. Who in the world looks at the US invasion of Iraq and thinks it was a good idea that should be emulated?

[majgr]

I wonder if this is bot or paid Russian troll..

[denofgen]

What you're witnessing right now are the deathroes of the dictatorships like Russia and China with its aging leaderships. These dictatorships know that their time is limited; the democratic countries are getting stronger and more united. China, the one dictatorship that is supporting all the other dictatorships like Russia or Iran, is going into the final stages of debt/demographic/economic collapse. This is a pivotal time for the citizens of the free world to fight against these dictatorships.

And you can help by asking your government to sanction China. And stop buying goods from China

[landemva]

' the democratic countries are getting stronger and more united. '

I see no evidence for this statement in western Europe countries. EU negative interest rates are an indicator of failure not success.

[zthrowaway]

While I agree, I’m afraid all your comment did was pull the anti-US Russian trolls out into the open.

[sschueller]

The US moto is the same as that of the fictional character Peacemaker: "I cherish peace with all my heart. I don't care how many men, women, and children I need to kill to get it."

[radu_floricica]

Yesterday we'd have laughed at this. Today we get it.

[refurb]

I would argue the US needs to batten down the hatches and become more isolationist. Let Europe deal with European problems. It's clear from the last 70 years, since WW2, that the US meddling in others' affairs only leads to death, destruction and more negative sentiment against the US.

If LBJ stuck to his promise, we could have avoid a ton of mess in Vietnam: "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."

We don't have a dog in this fight.

Edit: Apparently arguing for the US to not get involved in yet another foreign war warrants my comment being flagged.

[deeg]

It was a bad idea in the 1930's and it's an even worse idea now, with the globe being more interconnected than ever.

[icedistilled]

A similar sentiment was expressed in the 1930s.

[logicalmonster]

History doesn’t start in 1930.

Many have argued that it was US intervention in WWI that created the economic and political situations that allowed such a bad outcome to take place in WWII.

[icedistilled]

Is that your point US should have stayed out of WWII because of WWI?

[logicalmonster]

I'm talking about WWI here and the unintended consequences of US intervention there.

The US getting involved in WWI arguably extended that conflict, the action that made WWII possible, and had many drastic unintended consequences for humanity.

The very short version is this.

* During WWI, there were lots of peace overtures being pushed in Europe because a lot of people were sick of fighting. Because a lot of powerful people were hoping to drag the United States into that relative stalemate, these peace offerings were not taken as seriously as they otherwise would have been.

* Because the US's entrance tilted the scales at the end of WWI so dramatically, Allies were able to enact a little revenge in the Treaty of Versailles and impose punitive and humiliating economic and political measures. Rather than a normal, face-saving peace-treaty, Germany was punished harshly and this tilting of the scales is what led to conditions for the Nazis to take power.

* If Russia's economic and political attention wasn't directed externally at the time, it's likely the Russian Revolution would have failed and the world would have been spared a great deal of grief from Communism.

Obviously this is all alternative history speculation, but there's a strong case to be made that absolute US neutrality in WWI would have ended WWI sooner, not created the economic/social conditions that led to Nazis taking power in Germany, and Communists would have never taken root.