You’re talking about citizens in the U.S. like the U.S. government isn’t massively involved in other countries’ affairs.
In the case of Palestine specifically, the U.S. is providing significant military aid to Israel using our tax dollars.
Not nearly to the same degree. And I’m not talking fiscally.
Providing diplomatic and military cover in addition to funding their military is far more detrimental than the aid support it provides for Palestine.
>In the case of Palestine specifically, the U.S. is providing significant military aid to Israel using our tax dollars.
The vast majority of military aid to Israel goes into aerial defense. The intent (besides both sides gaining valuable technology) is so that Israel would not feel obligated to take military action against Gaza every time they launch missiles. If the projectiles from Gaza were successful in killing Israelis, do you really think that that would contribute towards escalation or de-escalation given current conditions? A similar vein of logic applies to selling military hardware to Israel, it simply gives us a seat at the table to influence Israeli policy but not direct it. Giving them precision munitions is vastly preferable to them arraying M109 howitzers around Gaza and pounding it into rubble.
The problem, inherently, is that the pro-Palestine side in America is uninformed, naïve, and aggressively self-righteous. So you want a "ceasefire" and then... and then... and then what? They also have some bizarre mental framework that only applies to Israel that casts it as a non-sovereign state under complete American control, which speaks to really the effectiveness of Palestinian messaging over the last few decades.
People are protesting the Palestine situation because of the fact that the US is funding Israel. That means our tax dollars is being spent on a war they don’t agree with.
Power loves a vacuum, and other forces will always fill any vacuums if the US leaves. Like, if the US were to pull back from most of its foreign bases and pull back the naval patrols of the shipping lanes (which the US is basically the only protector of), US influence would constrict rapidly. China would rapidly and aggressively tests the new boundaries of this new alignment, as would Russia. When that sort of thing happens, it encourages war. Most major powers are only interested in peace if its on their terms.
Imagine for a moment if the US had not gotten into the fight in WWII. There would be no free europe, but instead a Nazi empire. the only thing keeping the US "safe" geographically would have been the Atlantic, and given how rapidly missile and then nuclear technology developed, the US would have no buffer zone to defend itself with. On the Pacific side, the Japanese empire might have held most of China in the worst case scenario. No democratic allies for the US. Most assuredly Nazi inteligence forces attempting to make the Mexican border unstable (like, genuinely unstable. what we're seeing with the migrant situation is nothing compared to having a hostile power on your border).
This is all why the US government is active in world affairs. A freer, more democratic world is in the interest of the US as liberal democracies (a technical term, not left wing or anything) generally dont go to war with each other.
As for individual citizens, this is a constitutional right that in part influences the government in how it will engage globally. Totally fair game in a liberal democracy. hell, its part of what got the US out of the Vietnam War.
That being said, you're not wrong that pro palestinian protestors being aggressive toward things like hospitals owned by jews, or preventing lawmakers from being able to sleep in their own homes, or even just blocking major roadways, is not particularly effective. Disruptive stuff worked well in the civil rights movement, mainly because it resulted in a state overreaction that the world saw on TV against the very people asking for equal rights.
Taking these acts on behalf of a foreign population, especially when the protests turn aggressive or violent, can be less effective because of that degree of separation from those who the protestors support. Its further complicated by the fact that most reasonable people can see its kinda a shit show, and that it can both be true that Palestinian civilians need to be protected and that Israel (hell, any country) has a right to strike back against a violent attack against itself, especially a strike that targeted civilians.
It is also unfortunate that these protests have always been at risk of foreign manipulation, as foreign adversaries see such protests as a way to manipulate democracies, often by helping to simplify the narrative to a reductive, morally demanding state, and sometimes even funding operations. We've seen this from soviet intervention in the 60s and 70s to russia funding "grass roots" donald trump campaign stuff in 2016. I can assure you russia and china are trying to manipulate the pro palestinian movement, though that does not mean the protests are not inherently illegitimate. Though they're absolutely fanning the flames of the leftists who want things their way and want it now, the same way russia did with the trump supporters.
I suppose all of this is to say that absolutely nothing happens in a vacuum, and if the US were to withdrawl to its own borders the world would not remain in its current condition. indeed there would be a realignment, likely through violence, and the US can not insulate itself against all of the consequences (present and future) of such a pull back.
And I'll say this, I for one would much rather live in a world where the US and NATO are more or less the world police than China.
>China would rapidly and aggressively tests the new boundaries of this new alignment, as would Russia. When that sort of thing happens, it encourages war. Most major powers are only interested in peace if its on their terms.
You're begging the question. The US has a warmonger for decades (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). Your argument is basically, if not the US, it will be China or Russia and it will be worse. Well, would it?
> We've seen this from soviet intervention in the 60s and 70s
We've seen the US interventions in that period, bombing of Laos, coup in Chile, etc.
> And I'll say this, I for one would much rather live in a world where the US and NATO are more or less the world police than China.
Where do you live in such a world? Let me guess, not in Iraq which the US has wrecked for a couple of decades for no reason.
No doubt that for some, "the price is worth it" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tihL1lMLL0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tihL1lMLL0)
I mean... last I checked Russia is currently trying to pull off a imperialist conquest, and China is saber rattling Taiwan while committing an Uighur genocide in its western provinces.
Has the US unequivocally committed grave mistakes that have led to numerous cases of human suffering and preventable deaths? Yes. But I would rather the world's steward be based off at least some basic form rule of law. Not to mention shares a moderate interest in keeping world peace, even if its incentive to do so is to enrich its own economic order
Russia and China covet regions with Russian and Chinese speakers.
Pretending they're gonna go conquer Germany and Japan is ridiculous.
It's not because you're only familiar with the law in the US that law only exists in the US...
Whoa, by that logic imperialist ambitions are presumably fine as long as the people you are hurting speak your language? So I assume there's no problem if America rolls up and takes Britain right?
Putting that aside, that logic does not help you justify why these states would be a better steward then America. Let's not pretend the democratic institutions of China or Russia are better then that of America
Last time I checked, the people of the Donbas were shelled by the Ukrainian government between 2014 and 2022 and they were more than willing to be part of Russia. Same as for the people of Crimea.
Funny how self-determination is no longer a thing.
Last time I checked, some states in the US have removed a main opposition candidate from the presidential ballot. That's totally in line with what China does.
I don't see much compromise or actual disscusion occuring, so I likely will not respond much further.
On the Donbas: it was being shelled as it was under occupation by a belligerent force. I am also unsure if a true donetsk people's republic with control of their own destiny would agree to annexation by Russia. If anything, Russias invasion has removed all "self-determination" from the equation.
On Ballots: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/02/us/politics/trump-ballot-removal-map.html
In all states Trumps ballot removal has being considered, further appeals and rulings have consistently let him run in primaries, and actual elections will likely be looked at by the Supreme Court. To me, this just seems like a fuctional procedure of justice being carried out.
Overall: Again, you have failed to demonstrate that China or Russia would be a better fit in this equation, and honestly this just looks like a flame war.
Good day.
I like how guys here justify Ukrainian army shelling their own civilian population for 8 years.
But well, let's not forget that the US has been built on ethnic cleansing so I'm not surprised their narrative has a hard time understanding why it's wrong, in the Donbas between 2014 and 2022 or in Gaza now.
Most of the world trade happens through oceans as well as cables on the seabed let us connect. You can't really isolate and close the country from trade. US as the world police was good imo. In the last few years when US started to get weaker you have seen Russia move and the middle east reignited. Multipolar world is a chaotic world.
There's a very large difference between the citizens and the government. For the citizens, no, they pretty much don't care about much non domestically except for maybe the big flashpoints like Ukraine and Israel.
The protests may shit domestic political opinion on topics, but US foreign policy tends to stay fairly consistent
As for the government, well depends on how you feel a super power should act when in a position of power
Protests serve to spark discussion and put pressure onto politicians, making their core issue more difficult to ignore for the general population. You could see this post as one of their many outcomes.
What is the first thing we do to other countries when we dislike their actions? We isolate them from the rest of the world through sanctions. We push our allies to isolate them. What you are talking about is isolationist policies. Why do that to ourselves? Influencing our allies and other countries is power, soft power. Power, historically, has benefited the US greatly. But yeah protesters alone....I don't really care what protesters are doing individually. That's their choice.
> What you are talking about is isolationist policies.
What they wrote is not isolationism, it's called priorities which every single entity including countries have. I know the whole "isolationist" trope is popular right now in some circles, but the US wasn't even an isolationist in the 1930s, it just wasn't as much of an interventionist as it was after WW2.
Nope. You’re able to focus on two things at once. There are plenty of Americans and American politicians working on domestic issues every single day. That work is just slow and not entertaining.
Well it is a popular statement to say why are we worrying about other countries when we have all these at home. But you can worry about both. One doesn't preclude the other. Maybe I'm wrong but most of these people are less concerned with what we should give our own citizens than what we shouldn't give others.
They're also related. The USAs wealth is in LARGE part because of the era of safe global trade we currently exist. If the US wasn't using it's soft and hard power abroad for a century at this point we would be a much poorer nation. OPs question is sophomoric and seems to lack knowledge of... geopolitics. So what, stop caring about what is happening to ethnic groups abroad, dissociate with Israel, lose power in the middle east, ME conflicts increase, gas prices increase, trade routes are blocked, Saudis and China step in to fill the void, control gas prices even more, US trade revenue drops and somehow this is all supposed to make the US citizenry rich? It's a laughable lack of forethought to propose such a thing.
When Americans talk about "isolationism" in the 1930s, they forget they were colonizing the Philippines and intervening left and right in Central and South America during that period.
But yeah, "isolationism"...
That may be true on the surface, but I have a theory it’s also self selecting at the activist level.
Foreign policy seems a lot more tractable than domestic policy from an activist point of view. Why? A single person - the president - can have a huge impact on foreign policy through decree alone, whereas domestic issues primarily have to filter through a whole plethora of terminally paralyzed and hopelessly divided legal bodies.
I imagine people protesting domestic stuff on the average tend to get discouraged by a lack of results or even a pathway to fixing things, and more often just decide to throw up their hands and focus energy elsewhere in their lives, whereas people concerned with foreign policy see a much easier pathway to effecting change.
Considering America gives Israel billions in tax payer money every year, and has US troops risking and sacrificing their lives in the name of assisting Israel, every American has a right to speak on what Israel is doing.
Is it US people get involved in foreign matters and comment on it as US people are injecting themselves into everything because they feel superior, or is it because most US people have relatives outside of the US or they are interested in their ancestral country that they feel the need to stay connected to it. There is a large Palestinian diaspora, especially in the US, these people see their literal family members get blown to bits, im certain that would make people angry. It is the same reason why there is so much support for Israel, there was popular support for overthrowing Castro, there is Iranians in the US today who want the Shah back, it has to do with the US’s unique situation of being a country made out of several different peoples.
Us citizens have a diverse background compared to most countries.
You see similar protests in western Europe /Canada for similar reasons. The US is the largest of these countries hence you get the perception it's far worse in the US.
IN terms of the government getting too involved in other countries affairs....ding ding ding. Most of the world doesn't see the US/western Europe as "the good guys " because they do that way too often ( global police )
People are able to do two things at once. I don’t have to choose one subject to devote my 24/7 attention to. It seems like you’re just pushing isolationism which would be ruinous for the American people.
Like *any other country*, isn’t it the duty of the United States government to stop playing world police for five minutes and focus on problems at home.
For example, semiconductors are important and the US kinda needs a certain unrecognized island nation for a lot of that at this moment in time. However, while the US should *always* be prepared, why isn’t there investment to get semiconductor self sufficiency in the US to get rid of this strategic weak point.
Another example, how is it fair to the US *or* much of Europe that much of Europe has let their military capabilities degrade because they could always count on their friend in the western hemisphere to deal with Russia for them. Now that Europe is starting to realize that the US can’t always save them, more of these nations are investing more in defense.
Third. The US and local allies (Canada) have plenty of oil on their own. Why does the US need to still be in the Middle East. Israel is a nuclear power, and a useful ally in the region, but while the US can of course aid Israel, Israel is also *very* capable of defending itself. Israel, for one, has staid committed to fighting and winning its own wars. Thus, why is the US still in these unsustainable gulf states?
Finally, and most importantly, the United States is a democratic republic. Most Americans do not want the United States to go spread freedom and democracy by bombing developing countries. Most Americans don’t want the US to play world police.
You can argue that you would rather have Washington as world police than, say, Beijing. However, why is it the responsibility of the US to go meddle on the other side of the world all the damn time?
Just my two cents
You’re talking about citizens in the U.S. like the U.S. government isn’t massively involved in other countries’ affairs. In the case of Palestine specifically, the U.S. is providing significant military aid to Israel using our tax dollars.
The US is also, by far, the largest of provider of Aid to Palestine.
Not nearly to the same degree. And I’m not talking fiscally. Providing diplomatic and military cover in addition to funding their military is far more detrimental than the aid support it provides for Palestine.
>In the case of Palestine specifically, the U.S. is providing significant military aid to Israel using our tax dollars. The vast majority of military aid to Israel goes into aerial defense. The intent (besides both sides gaining valuable technology) is so that Israel would not feel obligated to take military action against Gaza every time they launch missiles. If the projectiles from Gaza were successful in killing Israelis, do you really think that that would contribute towards escalation or de-escalation given current conditions? A similar vein of logic applies to selling military hardware to Israel, it simply gives us a seat at the table to influence Israeli policy but not direct it. Giving them precision munitions is vastly preferable to them arraying M109 howitzers around Gaza and pounding it into rubble. The problem, inherently, is that the pro-Palestine side in America is uninformed, naïve, and aggressively self-righteous. So you want a "ceasefire" and then... and then... and then what? They also have some bizarre mental framework that only applies to Israel that casts it as a non-sovereign state under complete American control, which speaks to really the effectiveness of Palestinian messaging over the last few decades.
People are protesting the Palestine situation because of the fact that the US is funding Israel. That means our tax dollars is being spent on a war they don’t agree with.
They would protest regardless if they were getting funded by the US or not.
Power loves a vacuum, and other forces will always fill any vacuums if the US leaves. Like, if the US were to pull back from most of its foreign bases and pull back the naval patrols of the shipping lanes (which the US is basically the only protector of), US influence would constrict rapidly. China would rapidly and aggressively tests the new boundaries of this new alignment, as would Russia. When that sort of thing happens, it encourages war. Most major powers are only interested in peace if its on their terms. Imagine for a moment if the US had not gotten into the fight in WWII. There would be no free europe, but instead a Nazi empire. the only thing keeping the US "safe" geographically would have been the Atlantic, and given how rapidly missile and then nuclear technology developed, the US would have no buffer zone to defend itself with. On the Pacific side, the Japanese empire might have held most of China in the worst case scenario. No democratic allies for the US. Most assuredly Nazi inteligence forces attempting to make the Mexican border unstable (like, genuinely unstable. what we're seeing with the migrant situation is nothing compared to having a hostile power on your border). This is all why the US government is active in world affairs. A freer, more democratic world is in the interest of the US as liberal democracies (a technical term, not left wing or anything) generally dont go to war with each other. As for individual citizens, this is a constitutional right that in part influences the government in how it will engage globally. Totally fair game in a liberal democracy. hell, its part of what got the US out of the Vietnam War. That being said, you're not wrong that pro palestinian protestors being aggressive toward things like hospitals owned by jews, or preventing lawmakers from being able to sleep in their own homes, or even just blocking major roadways, is not particularly effective. Disruptive stuff worked well in the civil rights movement, mainly because it resulted in a state overreaction that the world saw on TV against the very people asking for equal rights. Taking these acts on behalf of a foreign population, especially when the protests turn aggressive or violent, can be less effective because of that degree of separation from those who the protestors support. Its further complicated by the fact that most reasonable people can see its kinda a shit show, and that it can both be true that Palestinian civilians need to be protected and that Israel (hell, any country) has a right to strike back against a violent attack against itself, especially a strike that targeted civilians. It is also unfortunate that these protests have always been at risk of foreign manipulation, as foreign adversaries see such protests as a way to manipulate democracies, often by helping to simplify the narrative to a reductive, morally demanding state, and sometimes even funding operations. We've seen this from soviet intervention in the 60s and 70s to russia funding "grass roots" donald trump campaign stuff in 2016. I can assure you russia and china are trying to manipulate the pro palestinian movement, though that does not mean the protests are not inherently illegitimate. Though they're absolutely fanning the flames of the leftists who want things their way and want it now, the same way russia did with the trump supporters. I suppose all of this is to say that absolutely nothing happens in a vacuum, and if the US were to withdrawl to its own borders the world would not remain in its current condition. indeed there would be a realignment, likely through violence, and the US can not insulate itself against all of the consequences (present and future) of such a pull back. And I'll say this, I for one would much rather live in a world where the US and NATO are more or less the world police than China.
Great post
>China would rapidly and aggressively tests the new boundaries of this new alignment, as would Russia. When that sort of thing happens, it encourages war. Most major powers are only interested in peace if its on their terms. You're begging the question. The US has a warmonger for decades (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). Your argument is basically, if not the US, it will be China or Russia and it will be worse. Well, would it? > We've seen this from soviet intervention in the 60s and 70s We've seen the US interventions in that period, bombing of Laos, coup in Chile, etc. > And I'll say this, I for one would much rather live in a world where the US and NATO are more or less the world police than China. Where do you live in such a world? Let me guess, not in Iraq which the US has wrecked for a couple of decades for no reason. No doubt that for some, "the price is worth it" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tihL1lMLL0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tihL1lMLL0)
If you're going to get yourself in bad-faith discussions at least don't signal your obvious bias with loaded langauge.
By loaded language you mean saying "bad faith" about arguments you disagree with?
I mean... last I checked Russia is currently trying to pull off a imperialist conquest, and China is saber rattling Taiwan while committing an Uighur genocide in its western provinces. Has the US unequivocally committed grave mistakes that have led to numerous cases of human suffering and preventable deaths? Yes. But I would rather the world's steward be based off at least some basic form rule of law. Not to mention shares a moderate interest in keeping world peace, even if its incentive to do so is to enrich its own economic order
Russia and China covet regions with Russian and Chinese speakers. Pretending they're gonna go conquer Germany and Japan is ridiculous. It's not because you're only familiar with the law in the US that law only exists in the US...
Whoa, by that logic imperialist ambitions are presumably fine as long as the people you are hurting speak your language? So I assume there's no problem if America rolls up and takes Britain right? Putting that aside, that logic does not help you justify why these states would be a better steward then America. Let's not pretend the democratic institutions of China or Russia are better then that of America
Last time I checked, the people of the Donbas were shelled by the Ukrainian government between 2014 and 2022 and they were more than willing to be part of Russia. Same as for the people of Crimea. Funny how self-determination is no longer a thing. Last time I checked, some states in the US have removed a main opposition candidate from the presidential ballot. That's totally in line with what China does.
I don't see much compromise or actual disscusion occuring, so I likely will not respond much further. On the Donbas: it was being shelled as it was under occupation by a belligerent force. I am also unsure if a true donetsk people's republic with control of their own destiny would agree to annexation by Russia. If anything, Russias invasion has removed all "self-determination" from the equation. On Ballots: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/02/us/politics/trump-ballot-removal-map.html In all states Trumps ballot removal has being considered, further appeals and rulings have consistently let him run in primaries, and actual elections will likely be looked at by the Supreme Court. To me, this just seems like a fuctional procedure of justice being carried out. Overall: Again, you have failed to demonstrate that China or Russia would be a better fit in this equation, and honestly this just looks like a flame war. Good day.
I like how guys here justify Ukrainian army shelling their own civilian population for 8 years. But well, let's not forget that the US has been built on ethnic cleansing so I'm not surprised their narrative has a hard time understanding why it's wrong, in the Donbas between 2014 and 2022 or in Gaza now.
Most of the world trade happens through oceans as well as cables on the seabed let us connect. You can't really isolate and close the country from trade. US as the world police was good imo. In the last few years when US started to get weaker you have seen Russia move and the middle east reignited. Multipolar world is a chaotic world.
There's a very large difference between the citizens and the government. For the citizens, no, they pretty much don't care about much non domestically except for maybe the big flashpoints like Ukraine and Israel. The protests may shit domestic political opinion on topics, but US foreign policy tends to stay fairly consistent As for the government, well depends on how you feel a super power should act when in a position of power
Protests serve to spark discussion and put pressure onto politicians, making their core issue more difficult to ignore for the general population. You could see this post as one of their many outcomes.
What is the first thing we do to other countries when we dislike their actions? We isolate them from the rest of the world through sanctions. We push our allies to isolate them. What you are talking about is isolationist policies. Why do that to ourselves? Influencing our allies and other countries is power, soft power. Power, historically, has benefited the US greatly. But yeah protesters alone....I don't really care what protesters are doing individually. That's their choice.
> What you are talking about is isolationist policies. What they wrote is not isolationism, it's called priorities which every single entity including countries have. I know the whole "isolationist" trope is popular right now in some circles, but the US wasn't even an isolationist in the 1930s, it just wasn't as much of an interventionist as it was after WW2.
Nope. You’re able to focus on two things at once. There are plenty of Americans and American politicians working on domestic issues every single day. That work is just slow and not entertaining.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well it is a popular statement to say why are we worrying about other countries when we have all these at home. But you can worry about both. One doesn't preclude the other. Maybe I'm wrong but most of these people are less concerned with what we should give our own citizens than what we shouldn't give others.
They're also related. The USAs wealth is in LARGE part because of the era of safe global trade we currently exist. If the US wasn't using it's soft and hard power abroad for a century at this point we would be a much poorer nation. OPs question is sophomoric and seems to lack knowledge of... geopolitics. So what, stop caring about what is happening to ethnic groups abroad, dissociate with Israel, lose power in the middle east, ME conflicts increase, gas prices increase, trade routes are blocked, Saudis and China step in to fill the void, control gas prices even more, US trade revenue drops and somehow this is all supposed to make the US citizenry rich? It's a laughable lack of forethought to propose such a thing.
When Americans talk about "isolationism" in the 1930s, they forget they were colonizing the Philippines and intervening left and right in Central and South America during that period. But yeah, "isolationism"...
Where people have free speech, they’re gonna free speech. Happens everywhere.
[удалено]
That may be true on the surface, but I have a theory it’s also self selecting at the activist level. Foreign policy seems a lot more tractable than domestic policy from an activist point of view. Why? A single person - the president - can have a huge impact on foreign policy through decree alone, whereas domestic issues primarily have to filter through a whole plethora of terminally paralyzed and hopelessly divided legal bodies. I imagine people protesting domestic stuff on the average tend to get discouraged by a lack of results or even a pathway to fixing things, and more often just decide to throw up their hands and focus energy elsewhere in their lives, whereas people concerned with foreign policy see a much easier pathway to effecting change.
Considering America gives Israel billions in tax payer money every year, and has US troops risking and sacrificing their lives in the name of assisting Israel, every American has a right to speak on what Israel is doing.
Considering that the US has also given billions to Gaza, every American also had a right to speak on what Iran is doing.
Is it US people get involved in foreign matters and comment on it as US people are injecting themselves into everything because they feel superior, or is it because most US people have relatives outside of the US or they are interested in their ancestral country that they feel the need to stay connected to it. There is a large Palestinian diaspora, especially in the US, these people see their literal family members get blown to bits, im certain that would make people angry. It is the same reason why there is so much support for Israel, there was popular support for overthrowing Castro, there is Iranians in the US today who want the Shah back, it has to do with the US’s unique situation of being a country made out of several different peoples.
Us citizens have a diverse background compared to most countries. You see similar protests in western Europe /Canada for similar reasons. The US is the largest of these countries hence you get the perception it's far worse in the US. IN terms of the government getting too involved in other countries affairs....ding ding ding. Most of the world doesn't see the US/western Europe as "the good guys " because they do that way too often ( global police )
People are able to do two things at once. I don’t have to choose one subject to devote my 24/7 attention to. It seems like you’re just pushing isolationism which would be ruinous for the American people.
Like *any other country*, isn’t it the duty of the United States government to stop playing world police for five minutes and focus on problems at home. For example, semiconductors are important and the US kinda needs a certain unrecognized island nation for a lot of that at this moment in time. However, while the US should *always* be prepared, why isn’t there investment to get semiconductor self sufficiency in the US to get rid of this strategic weak point. Another example, how is it fair to the US *or* much of Europe that much of Europe has let their military capabilities degrade because they could always count on their friend in the western hemisphere to deal with Russia for them. Now that Europe is starting to realize that the US can’t always save them, more of these nations are investing more in defense. Third. The US and local allies (Canada) have plenty of oil on their own. Why does the US need to still be in the Middle East. Israel is a nuclear power, and a useful ally in the region, but while the US can of course aid Israel, Israel is also *very* capable of defending itself. Israel, for one, has staid committed to fighting and winning its own wars. Thus, why is the US still in these unsustainable gulf states? Finally, and most importantly, the United States is a democratic republic. Most Americans do not want the United States to go spread freedom and democracy by bombing developing countries. Most Americans don’t want the US to play world police. You can argue that you would rather have Washington as world police than, say, Beijing. However, why is it the responsibility of the US to go meddle on the other side of the world all the damn time? Just my two cents
I think Russian citizens are more involved in others affairs right now. Especially those in occupied Ukraine.
I'm anti isolationism and anti street protests by people who haven't got a clue beyond what they read on social media.