Cheetah01 said:
No one is saying they shouldn't. By all means they should fight as long as they want. However, if they expect support, then those providing support have a right to exercise sober judgement in how the resources are being used and the likelihood of success. This is how financial decisions are made. You don't walk into a bank and ask money without showing a plan for your use of the money and you especially don't treat the bank manager with disdain while asking. That's essentially what happened.
If the US was actually invaded and at war as your hypothetical suggests, do you honestly believe anyone would be spending unlimited resources to help us (even without Trump in office)? They might make some strong remarks and make some pro forma gestures, but they wouldn't fund an unending resistance even if we did have a likelihood of success.
I didn't address any of this, just made a point.
Since you brought it up to me...
I don't care how ling this war goes on. So many posters here want us to withdraw from the world, and then poof, now we care about ending the war because so many arw dying.
More dead russians is a net positive for us. We just have to determine a good price for it.
The money we have spent so far has shown us they are not a near peer enemy, but in fact a weak enemy. We can pull back from european defense spending.
It has also given us insights into future war, especially drone warfare.
The money we have spent has been the single biggest bang for the buck in natiinal defense spending since WWII.
Much better than so many high dollar dod programs.
If we had competent leadership the previos 4 years, putin would be gone. Insteas we enabled china, iran and north korea to bale out russia. That and gutting our energy sector, allowing russia to keep selling energy to finance the war.
Also, we fought the brits using french funding. They didn't do it out of kindness, they did it out of self interest.