[ashoeafoot]

You either fight far away or you fight at home. The choice to fight though is not yours to make. Its the choice of the defectors of law, of Despots and murderers. You can fight them today, while they rob you with a stick or tomorrow, when they have a gun. But fight you must.

[steve_gh]

Every country gets an army.

The only choice is whose.

[bilbo0s]

You either fight far away or you fight at home.

That's just the sort of macho thinking that has caused so many military endeavors to fail throughout history. Maybe the politics is about soundbites like that one? I don't know? I'm not a politician. But the actual prosecution of a military conflict is about outcomes. Not soundbites.

Will there be a good outcome or not?

I mean, if it makes you feel any better, you can think of it this way. Our past has taught us that, without question, it is best to fight far away, but only after an enemy has been weakened by others.

I know how that sounds to many non-US citizens. But I'm just being honest about how the thinking in America has developed historically.

[mulmen]

It looks like the war in Ukraine should be beneficial to the United States. We send some surplus equipment and ramp up ammo production (jobs!) while weakening a prominent geopolitical adversary all without spilling American blood.

Letting Ukraine fall will embolden Russia who will continue their march across Europe until it is necessary to spill American blood.

Similarly we may not have a choice in Taiwan. Japan and The Philippines at least aren’t keen to have an emboldened imperialist China in their backyards. If they intervene US aid at least will be in our best interest.

Isolationism is not a guaranteed ideal strategy in all situations. Looking only at boondoggles like Vietnam, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan doesn’t mean all US intervention is harmful to the national interest.

[ashoeafoot]

That certainly was the perspective from WW1 to pearl harbor