[herculity275]

It really sucks that "Saddam has WMDs" broke an entire generation of Americans into knee-jerk contrarianism regarding any global conflict US is involved in. What's the "WMD" equivalent here - what do you think the media is lying to you about? That there's an ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine is something all involved parties acknowledge.

[thomassmith65]

The best explanation for people who obsess over 'Saddam has WMDs' is that they were gullible enough, at the time, to believe it.

On a related note, a lot of the morons who gave GWB a second term seem to be populists now. They would be more helpful to America if they stopped trying to understand the world around them, and instead just voluntarily stopped voting.

[potato3732842]

All the WMDs did was disgrace the media

It was the half dozen other adventures in the sandbox with nothing to show for it that made people put down their foot and say no more and stick to it even when it's a cause they may support (Ukraine for some, Israel for others). That's how fed up with it the American public is.

[DidYaWipe]

But wait... you don't dare suggest that we stop propping up Israel's apartheid regime and occupation of other people's land!

[s1artibartfast]

I think the "wmd equivalent" is the idea that Russia will move on Berlin if they're not contained in Ukraine.

I think the idea that the Budapest memorandum is a US security guarantee here's another comparable lie.

[_DeadFred_]

Unlike the wmd lie which was generated completely by the USA, all of Europe seems pretty concerned to the point they just approved another 650 billion in debt TODAY, something Europe REFUSED to do for what 40 years?

Because X happened in the past does not mean that Y is X. Only people reaching hard to push an agenda would claim any similarity.

[s1artibartfast]

I think both are similar in that they obfuscate real discussion on the purpose of war and tradeoffs.

If the goal is to be global police, that is a conversation worth having. Same if the goal is to show solidarity with our EU allies for its own sake. I think these other topics are manufactured consent.

[_DeadFred_]

This you?

"I think the "wmd equivalent" is the idea that Russia will move on Berlin if they're not contained in Ukraine."

Because now all of the sudden you are saying something totally different and nebulous 'world police' BS.

Why are your trying to equate Europe dramatically and instantly shifting their spending and EU policy to some nebulous 'global police' comment instead of addressing your original point, that you state no one actually believes 'Russia moving on Europe' is a real thing, and trying to equate it to the WMD lie?

You original point is BS, Europe believes to the tune of 650 billion just committed and breaking all of their long standing norms when it comes to defense that it is a real issue. Hense you having to move to some nebulous 'world police' nonsense.

[s1artibartfast]

I am asking what the core purpose and rationale for USA involvement is, and saying that this should be the center of discussion, whatever it is. It seems like nobody can agree or articulate what this is in a coherent way.

Everything else is a sideshow and distraction.

I don't see how Europe spending 650 billion answers this question either. The US spending money because Europe is with no deeper logic elementary school thought.

[_DeadFred_]

You really can't back your original statement can you? You made a specific claim:

"I think the "wmd equivalent" is the idea that Russia will move on Berlin if they're not contained in Ukraine."

Ie, that Russia being a threat to Europe is a convenient lie used to manipulate actions, and Russia isn't a threat.

Europe spending 650 billion and upsetting their long standing defense posture (especially Germany's post WW2 one) shows they didn't/don't view/weren't using the threat Russia poses as a lie to manipulate the USA into being 'World Police' and they are up ending their entire order to defend against Russia (actions with ZERO 'world policing' upside for them).

You tried to downplay Russia as a threat using a comparison to the WMD lie to lend false strength to your position that Russia is not a threat and you failed so miserably you completely pivoted from it.

Edit: News is now reporting that Germany is literally changing their constitution because they don't believe your position that Russia's threat to Europe is a lie.

[kamaal]

once bitten, twice shy

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20bitten%2C%...

[kelipso]

There is absolutely no requirement that the US has to get involved in every regional conflict in the world. Let the Ukrainians and Russians deal with their mess. There are plenty of other regional conflicts we ignore.

[smac__]

The USA was part of the Budapest Memorandum. This is a pretty strong reason for the USA to provide support for Ukraine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

[s1artibartfast]

The Budapest Memorandum says the US wont invade Ukraine. It is easy to do that from home.

[sethammons]

from the wiki, 4th point in the agreement:

> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Ukraine was the victim of an act of aggression from Russia. Pretty obvious that the US gave its word it would protect them.

[s1artibartfast]

How do you get that. The US sought security council action within days of the war starting.

Nowhere does it say us has to guarantee safety or go to war. Nevermind the fact that threats of nuclear aggression came much later.

[Aeolun]

> Nevermind the fact that threats of nuclear aggression came much later.

The threats of nuclear aggression were there from the start. What other thing do you think prevents the EU from raining death on the Russians from above.

[kelipso]

It's a reason but it's not a strong reason. Back then Ukraine was indistinguishable from Russia, basically a small breakaway country from the USSR. So the intent was more likely that the US wouldn't attack Ukraine. Besides which, the nukes in Ukraine were never under Ukraine's control or possession, so the agreement looks to be more for optics than anything.

[libertine]

It's just the US word signed in an agreement. Meaning the US word is now of the same value of Russia.

Saying Ukraine is a "small breakaway country from the USSR", while being the largest country in Europe is one of the most detached takes I've seen on this subject lmao

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[mitthrowaway2]

The US didn't end up in this position by fluke. It was a deliberate policy reaction to the nuclear weapons age. If you don't want everyone from Croatia to Canada equipping themselves with nuclear weapons and starting border skirmishes over water rights, the states that maintain a nuclear arsenal and international network of military bases have to step up and enforce the rules.

And yes, the invasion of Iraq on a paper thin pretext arguably was the beginning of the collapse of this equilibrium, and it's no surprise that North Korea reacted by doubling down on their nuclear program.

With great power comes great responsibility. For generations, Americans preferred having a monopoly on geopolitical power. The USA can certainly give up its great responsibility, but beware the consequences, because the global calculus changes accordingly.

[jopsen]

True, but rarely do you get an opportunity to wear down a principal enemy by donating equipment to a democratic nation defending itself.

Without any requirements that the US puts boots on the ground.

It's in the interest of most countries that borders are immutable and that aggressors are made to pay.

[hulitu]

> There is absolutely no requirement that the US has to get involved in every regional conflict in the world

It is not a requirement, it's the implementation. There is a good reason why the USA was called "world policeman".

[anonfordays]

>There is a good reason why the USA was called "world policeman".

And Europeans and leftist shit talked the US for it for decades. They called for the US to close military bases around the world, shit talked the amount the US spends on defense, etc.

Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for. What a spectacle.

[justin66]

> Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for. What a spectacle.

On the contrary, Russian tanks rolling into Eastern Europe is something many people on the left and right in the United States have always taken seriously, and judged to be worthy of the US's intervention, even if they judged some of our other interventions to be bullshit. The strange part - the real change - is that there are people now who do not.

[mopsi]

Haven't they been proven right? What was the point of decades of military spending on Europe, all those bases and other expenses, if in the end, the US simply lacked the willpower to use them as intended to stop a Russian invasion and simply gave in to Russian demands without getting anything in return? The US is losing its superpower status without firing a single shot.

[_DeadFred_]

Heck yeah bro, we're owning the Europeans! What a win for the USA! Love basing our geopolitical policy, and breaking our honor in keeping commitments on that. So much winning.

[arandomusername]

USA has not made commitments to defend Ukraine. They have not broken their comittments in defending countries they promised to, e.g NATO

[anonfordays]

>Heck yeah bro, we're owning the Europeans!

Not at all, we're just giving them what they've asked for for decades.

>What a win for the USA!

What a win for the EU! The militaristic "world police" oppressors are leaving!

>Love basing our geopolitical policy, and breaking our honor in keeping commitments on that.

We're being honorable by finally giving Europeans what they've asked for.

So much losing!

[HDThoreaun]

Right, the leftists are idiots. Now everyone is going to start a nuclear program and the world will become much less safe.

[throw919232156]

The US provoked the war, the US can finish the war. It is that simple.

Don't dump your wars and middle eastern refugees on the EU. What if the EU started a war in Mexico, drove 40 million refugees to the US, then left and let the US clean up the mess?

[dlahoda]

how it is the case us started war insubjedt country of ua?

or you mean other countries?

[honkycat]

The Russians are stealing their rare and valuable resources so they can gouge our long term allies.

Trillions of dollars in essential rare earth materials and natural gas isn't worth fighting for? Then why EVER go to war?

[foldr]

You really think that this conflict has no repercussions or implications for US interests?

[kelipso]

No, if the US considers it be a regional conflict, then that's all it will be in terms of repercussions or interests. Maybe in terms of vague geopolitical concerns that might be relevant decades from now, though even that is unclear, but the US is too powerful to have repercussions from not being involved in this conflict.

[foldr]

China and other countries don’t see it that way. They are looking for signals as to what they might be able to get away with, now that the US has decided that it chose the wrong team during the Cold War.

[DidYaWipe]

If China seizes Taiwan, we're going to do exactly squat about it. The best thing the USA can do in regard to that situation is stay quiet, and let the status remain unchanged without goading China into doing something to save face.

And that means no more moronic field trips by grandstanding senators.

[foldr]

China would have seized it already if they were sure there’d be no US response. But if the US continues to wink at Putin’s crimes, they may change their mind.

[rayiner]

“Repercussions or implications for US interests” is layering attenuation upon attenuation. That can’t be the standard.

[foldr]

You’re misapprehending the logic of the discussion. OP suggests that this is a regional conflict without implications for US interests (see their response to my comment if you think my interpretation is off). I said, “Really?” My questioning that claim doesn’t imply any commitment to the claim that the US must intervene in all conflicts that have implications for US interests.