Yes to both. And we should make that clear, else we're green lighting each.old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 7:07 pmThat part is a fabrication. I never denied that the little green men who seized Crimea were Russians. I pointed out that they received little to no resistance from Ukranian military forces.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:07 pm
Yes, I do support being a bulwark for Ukraine. Definitely...I recall you trying to tell us it wasn't really the Russians who crossed the border and took Crimea, then you pivoted to the claim that it was really Russia's in the first place...I recall our argument at that time, the tragic history of appeasement.
I'm still right, IMO.
Listen, if you want to be an isolationist and a nationalist, rejecting international law and organizations, global interdependence, prefer to let other nations deal with their own crises and threats, etc...no sweat, that's simply your opinion (Tulsi's too?)...but how about some actual integrity and consistency to this isolationism?
If you and Tulsi actually believe we should go back to isolationism, then advocate pulling the Navy and Air Force all the way back, abandon all bases around the world, including ME and North Africa...stop messing with what's happening elsewhere, stop striking perceived enemies and simply defend ourselves at home. No more pretending that we need to fight Islamic extremists as if they're actually a bigger threat to America's interests than Russia, China...much less the threat from within. Go ahead and build your wall, keep out all those non-white immigrants...
But be consistent.
We'll disagree.
My isolationism is non-interventionist. No nation building or wars of choice for human rights abuses or imposing changes in culture.
I support strong naval forces to keep the sea lanes open (with allies) which are vital to our economic survival, robust alliances with fellow democracies & a strong military for deterrence purposes. I support our pivot to Asia to support our Indo-Pacific allies via conventional deterrence. I think we over-invest in defending a wealthy EU from a Russian threat that they do not take seriously, just because we let Putin get under our skin with his political needling. We need to do as much in NATO as our EU allies do, & no more, & focus more on the W Hemisphere & Arctic.
You think we should be a "bulwark" for Ukraine -- whatever that weasel word means. Should we respond with military force against Russia if they invade Ukraine ? Yes or No ?
Do you think we should respond with military force against China if they invade Taiwan ? Yes or No ?
You and I could agree on some things in terms of priorities, but you lost me with your defense of "nationalism" and "isolationism", historical tragedies again and again, and your denial of what the Russians were trying to do...on behalf of Trump, whose "policies" you supported.