(03-01-2026, 02:15 PM)DBCowboy Wrote: I think we should use all the arguments against us doing this to Iran for us not getting involved with Ukraine.

I think that's actually a good case study. The Democrats strongly supported it, and there was a little resistance on the Republican side. This one is completely inversed.
I think the key differences are that Russia has and could potentially be a threat again given they have more capabilities than Iran right now.
Do people critical of that conflict have a good point? I think it could be argued well and appreciated. But we do have a treaty with Ukraine after they agreed to give up their nukes. I imagine it was good we got them to forfeit them before they became a new poor state with questionable loyalties in the ranks. We said we'd help them, never said how.
Our military never directly got involved. The bit of caveat there is we did provide some targeting, I think that was a horrible line for us to cross. Aside from that they got mostly hand me downs. Other than some symbolic cruise missiles and patriot batteries.
I'd say the difference here is that there are no treaties at play, and we're using the absolute best of munitions, much of which has a time problem more than a money problem to replenish.
If you ask me if Iran was worth our direct involvement at this moment, I don't think I saw the same threat in them short term to blow through all this gear.
In hindsight, Ukraine was a total waste of resources, and I think ultimately we just used them to hurt Russia. Their fate is probably sealed, even if it's not, they paid a huge price so far.