That's not Neo-Con.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 4:22 pma fan wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 3:51 pmThe bolded above is Bush's New World Order, chapter and verse.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 2:40 pmThe mission should be, and I believe has been, to uphold international law and to deter aggressors thinking that their military power and size alone is sufficient to successfully invade a smaller neighbor and to justify war crime behaviors.a fan wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 12:50 pm....and thus the inevitable mission creep has arrived.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 11:21 am Replying to above without reposting.
What weapons systems did the US use in shooting down Iranian missile barrage? Houthis? What is their range?
Frankly, I think NATO should go all-in with providing air cover to Ukraine, refrain themselves from striking targets within Russia unless fired upon directly. Declare an alliance treaty between Ukraine and NATO for the protection of civilians in Ukraine from war crimes being committed by Russia.
We and the rest of NATO have been enormously reluctant to have direct conflict, to avoid 'escalation', but I think it's time to stop this war in its tracks and push Russia out. Make it clear that further attacks in Ukraine are attacks on a NATO ally. Where any lines get drawn if Russia sues for peace is another matter, but enough's enough. Maybe the Russians keep Crimea, maybe not.
It always does.
This was an interesting such situation because of the complication of potential nuclear exchange but the mission remains the same.
I just think the realities of having not provided Ukraine with sufficient weaponry when they needed it to prosecute the war successfully on their own has led to needing to step up to take direct defensive action on their behalf, else the entire effort and mission will have been lost. And all sorts of catastrophic ripple effects.
I'd call that operational creep not mission creep.
Nothing in the above means that to have reached a defense treaty with them at least in 2014 forward would not have produced a better outcome with far less bloodshed and treasure. But we deal with current realities, not past 'what ifs'...
Boilerplate Republican Neo-Con thinking. Next time Cradle tells you you're not a real Republican...show him this.
I don't agree as to Neo-Con, but it is hearkening back to the notion that the world is safer and more prosperous when nations respect international law and systems of collective cooperation, and aggression is deterred by strong alliances and repercussions for bad actors.
Neo-Con is: everything, everywhere is the US's military business. That thinking is why we invaded Iraq. And is why we've armed Ukraine and Taiwan.
The "Alliances" (i.e. Senate-ratified Treatis) part ain't Neo-Con. It's quite simply Constitutional thinking, and baked into that Document.
We've 1000% forgotten that. And why it's in the Constitution: it's to keep our POTUS from acting like a military dictator, and making the waging of war easy and thoughtless.
Wanna defend Kuwait? Great. Strike up a treaty. Vote on it. Guess what? Now Saddam CAN'T invade. Fake problem solved.