Europe needs to deal with its own wars, and if it came to that a republican president said USA will not get involved in yet another European war I might very interested in that. Billions of dollars of funding, arms and equipment, or any non human support are all fine but I draw a line at humans getting inv... supremus.micro.blog

@stupendousman That depends on where the war will be, won’t it? European NATO members have, (albeit reluctantly at times), stood up for the American led operations, and the treaty is still on. If the current war(s) can’t be contained where they are, there’s only a matter of time before they come to the USA.

@odd Every war comes to USA no matter what, and thats the problem for me. The human loss that America bears vs other countries is too high (not that ANY country deserves human loss due to wars in the first place!). I am also not a fan of these American led operations either. We need to get to a state where every problem in the world is not America's problem to deal with. I get that it comes with the responsibility of being a super power, but not convinced America has to be involved in everything. Indian foreign minister Jaishankar said it best:

“Somewhere Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems. That if it is you, it’s yours, if it is me it is ours. I see reflections of that,” he said.

@stupendousman I agree that America shouldn’t be expected to barge into every conflict there is. But I expect it to honour treaties, in which they even were the major protagonist, mainly because it was of great economic value to the US.

One of the reasons USA became a superpower in the first place was the allied nations willingness to part with resources post WW2. It is also not accurate that European countries don’t do aid, that be military or humanitarian. They have among other places done that in India for over a hundred years. Maybe American (or Indian) television doesn’t report on European aid, but we’re used to that over here.

There also a big difference between going into a conflict where nobody has asked for help, (but it’s financially sound for a nation to do so), and one where atrocities are committed and people are pleading for help.

@stupendousman USA has to get involved in every conflict not out of goodwill but because of economics. Let's not forget the biggest military-industrial complex in the world. @odd

@Parag Yes, that is a main motivator. I wish they have spared some of the gunpowder for necessary use though.

@Parag As I said in my post, economic involvement is fine, but I draw the line at human (troops) involvement. If every conflict requires American boots on the ground, its a problem. Some places of course its inevitable, but places like Europe should be able to figure how to put their own boots on the ground, which Ukraine has done a great job so far. @odd