It's obvious, and either many congressmen are an agent of a foreign power, or are truly dumb enough to not realize the unspoken obviousness of this simple fact.

Prefix: I ended up ranting/venting a bit... our government is so frustrating at times:

From a US perspective, it is more a time for other countries to step up in this regard (as they have been), as while continued funding and support from the US will happen, it may be a long time from the US (maybe even 2 to 4 years if this election cycle doesn't oust/block some of these nutjobs that are either beholden to outside powers, or don't understand anything outside our own borders).

I'll take this time to say what many keep unspoken, because Ukrainians have the balls to actually voice it to the world:

No offense to Ukrainians, I want them to win, but even a loss in Ukraine after a sustained long drawn out battle, is of benefit to any country Russia considers an adversary, a place to oppress, or a country were attractive resources. Ukraine should be supported in their opposition to this invasion for as many years as it takes, no matter what. Twenty years, fifty years, however long; there should be no metric of 'it's been 2 years, and Ukraine hasn't won; are they just wasting our money?'. That is just a dumb concept.

[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure we should be dismissive of politicians trying to reduce interventionist foreign pokicy in the abstract. The "US as world police" paradigm is a difficult angle.

From the US perspective, it's expensive AF, delivers erratic results (see Iraq) and it's created a lot of enemies over the years, basically handing Russia and China a support base on a silver platter.

On a global level, it does seem a bit weird for everyone to come calling to one nation for support, which doesn't really encourage a multi-voiced and spirited debate if everything breaks down to "whoever has US backing wins".

There's definitely a "we wrote a cheque we no longer want to cash" lock-in factor on this conflict, but maybe it's also time to stop writing so many cheques.

[–] Truck_kun@beehaw.org -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Unless all countries come together, the idea of a 'world police' by any number of select countries is silly.

One nation being the 'world police' is even crazier.

We rely on coalitions nowadays to do much (Iraq, Haiti, Yemen, ....maybe Yemen again soon..., etc).

Coalitions are better than a single nation, but should really be an organization independent of any nations, that people trust; in the modern world, ideally would be the UN, which has peacekeeping forces, but I don't know if the trust is currently there with the UN, and a number of 'bad actors', namely because the UN doesn't serve that purpose, it is supposed to be a dialog between nations, not a unifying power, or protector/military force.

The good news on the US front, is for many coalitions to step in, the US is trying to take a back-seat, and have other nations lead them. Not that those other nations don't have concerns. I'm not up to date on it, but I believe Kenya was being sought to lead the coalition to Haiti to restore peace and order, but I believe there were concerns about the history of Kenyan police treatment in past coalitions. Still, the US should not be the one in-charge of world policing, though that is not to say they shouldn't be involved in any such action, just they are a piece of the puzzle, not the solution in and of itself.

I'm rambling too much. I think it's time for me to get off Lemmy for the day. Peace out.