Being anti-war is horrible.
You just get Jimmy Carter 2.0 and get Americans held hostage and killed.
Being a warmonger is also bad.
Be someone who knows war is often mandatory and needed, but do ones nest to resort to peace.
Also know when there is no peace available and be prepared to support the ones doing such things
Framing support for Ukraine or the US military as being 'pro-war', and wanting to cut aid to Ukraine and cut defense spending as being 'anti-war', is part of the problem with this chain or rhetoric.
It's a simplified duality that doesn't actually represent what the real issues at hand are.
Empty truism.
Yes, no one wants North Korean immigration policy. But only some candidates explicitly want *more* legal immigration.
"Anti war" is a code word for anti-western leftist idealism, always was, always will be. This foolishness has no place on the right, anywhere, ever. We don't need to be useful idiots, that's the left's thing. The part of the right that things there is any sense in catering to the hippy vote has taken a full turn into the clown town.
No, if the Right embraces Roosevelt Republicanism, they could peel off the environmental realistist, as well as help with making inroads with conservative minorities like Eleanor Roosevelt accomplished, and like FDR not be afraid to fight battles/wars that have to be fought.
I would recommend reading the works of Edward Abbey, 'Monkey Wrench Gang' and 'Desert Solitaire' to get a better understanding of those sorts, and how to reach them by disarming some of the ideological paradox's they don't understand they are holding to.
Also, the US ski industry would probably love sane conservatism back, because the Far Left has seriously hampered the develepment of housing for the workers and that has huge implications for a large amount of towns with now other serious source of income, as well as trying to start/expand ski area's.
Vail Corp is a sheep herding/mine supply town that became a very successful ski area company of the work of other outside groups and Eishenhower loving it and Aspen, and that became a international juggernaught. It's not quite a monopoly situation, but it does crowd out a lot of new growth and sort of go Borg on a lot of the rest of the industry.
If some people could turn Vail Corp against wokeness, they could easily undermine the movement's cohesiveness and attractiveness to the elite that ski there, simply by not holding Pride events or making a fuss of non-hetero 'inclusiveness' issues. They don't want to end up like InBev and Bud Light, and there are other mountains out there to ski on that Vail Corp doesn't yet own.
Likewise. Do some basic research on historical ideological connections of anything remotely resembling the US "anti war movement" before you reply. You cannot deny the long running leftist connection, so you don't, instead of just trying to act as if you are obviously right and your fellow travelers will hopefully back you up.
Eh, Kent State and Mai Lai pissed off more than just Leftists. Also, shit like the poisoned water in Camp Lejune or stupidity of how the A-stan withdrawal happened is not something that is just going to go away.
Even framing things as 'pro-war'/'anti-war' on the part of people who understand the need for a standing military of some capacity is falling for a narrative trap.
The conversation should be about what threats a given nation in the western alliance faces, what it needs to do to deal with said threats, and how best to fight graft/corruption in military industrial spending so we don't end up with a 'phantom battalions' type situation like we've seen in Russia and elsewhere.
And for reasons of own ignorance, they are wholesale robbing idiotic leftists of their trademark "chest beating" arguments for the sake of the "anti war" cause that include apologia for every shithole that went into conflict with the West, like abovementioned Iranian islamic revolutionary regime.
Remind me, who was whining about neocons, globalists and warmongers 20 years ago?
Was Code Pink "Old Right" or "America First"?
We both know neither Old Right nor America First movements came up with these arguments. Some useful idiots in these movements indeed repeat them, but i consider that a case of leftist propaganda doing its job - being spewed by all media and cultural institutions in every direction at such high pressure and quantity, that often few drops get even into places where they would be absolutely unexpected.
No, you are at "Leftists acted like this for a century and it was retarded, but now we are acting exactly like this and you're supposed to think its smart and has nothing to do with leftists" level of grand delusion.
You are right in most/all of this, however you also seem to only view this from the perspective of someone who is a neighbor of Russia and in a country Russia has controlled in living memory.
I know that the isolationist parts of the US Right are being generally unwitting/stubborn parrots of some Russian arguments. However some of the complaints are legit domestic gripes and dismissing them, instead of trying to figure out how to help the US handle them without violating the Constitution, is a mistake.
As well, a little less off-hand condescension could go a long way to helping making some people less defensive to otherwise reasonable points.
Hence the "force" in forcing a peace; it's just not something a country that nobody fears or respects can accomplish, which is what the United States has become under Biden. What some people are hoping is that Trump (or Vivek, or DeSantis) may be able to get Putin to back down.
Much of Europe (as well as our own country) is already in China's back pocket anyways, and everyone there has pretty firmly established that they will never back the United States unless it's in their best interest to do so, so that threat of yours rings entirely hollow.
The problem is that we have no way to actually get Putin to follow through on any deal that isn't Ukraine's 1991 borders and NATO membership after to ensure the Russians don't try again. Ukrainians aren't going to stop fighting because parts of the US political scene go stupid, it just means that more on both sides will die before the same UA victory is achieved.
The Immigration people have extended the protected status of UA refugees in the US till sometime in 2025, so they expect the war to last at least that long, which is realistic.
If Biden had not slow rolled the F-16s, and HIMARs before that, the war would be over far, far faster. The Brits have been more useful than the US when it comes to getting Ukraine advanced weapons without all the political strings attached that US procurement/domestic politics entail. Right now the naval and amphibious war around Crimea is the key axis; when the remaining land bridge to Crimea comes under short/medium arty range, and the Kerch get whacked more often/harder, Crimea is going to become a isolated pocket of troops only suppliable by air or one of Russia's limited amounts of ferries/landing craft in the Sea of Azov.
Though with Prigozhin's death, we may see a real blow up inside Russia itself, as the remains of Wagner are now out for revenge, and that throws a huge wild card in the mix.
www.bbc.com
