To be fair, the US is also talking about annexing territory from non-allies, too. Maybe we need to annex territory comprising widely varying climates and degrees of strategic value?
I said allies because, although I don't personally agree, I can see all argument for why the "leader of the free world" would be taking on tyrants and dictators, whereas no such argument can hold water when they're threatening countries that rate higher than themselves on the democracy index
I don't equate personal freedoms with conquests. If you are a threat to our country I give no cares for what we do to you. If your nation has to be thrown on the pyre of Americas freedom..so be it.
Alec I can't respond to your response. But no it wasn't a parody. I don't actually think we are cozying up to Putin. Europe keeps throwing money at him, we are just trying to end a stupid war. The "purge" is more of a fact finding to see who is wasting our money and how. No one is being killed, jailed, or tortured. I would however not mind if many politicians end up in jail. People forget previous presidents have fired over 350,000 federal employees, the sky didn't fall. But the national debt did for a time...just saying...
That’s not even remotely comparable. The United States and Ukraine are vastly different in terms of military capability, geographic positioning, and strategic importance. Putin annexing a couple of U.S. states is a laughably unrealistic scenario—he can barely hold the territory he's taken from a country bordering his own.
The war in Ukraine is tragic, but it’s not our war. The idea that we must commit endless resources to it just because it’s happening is not a rational foreign policy stance. A stronger America means prioritizing where we spend our strength, not blindly throwing resources at conflicts that don’t directly threaten us.
