I always find it crazy how isolationists end up being wrong 99% of the time.

I always find it crazy how isolationists end up being wrong 99% of the time. How often has military adventurism been right?

How often has military adventurism been right? For Vlad? Often, apparently.

Never said we should do Iraq style invasions.

Isolationism--or, more appropriately, inaction or indifference that may happen to enjoy justification in isolationist thought--might be preferable in certain cases, direct military involvement in others, and some hybrid strategy of indirect support and proxy conflict in still others. Seems to me the third is the likely result here and, whether one thinks that's right or wrong, it's hard to view that as chest-beating adventurism, Chamberlainian appeasement, or living-under-a-rock isolationism. Broad generalizations about schools of thought and approaches to foreign policy are dangerous in the sense that they both conduce formulaic approaches to complex problems and make it easy to weaponize these generalizations against others who might disagree. All that to say, the "war" vs. "not war" dichotomy strikes me as a false one, and one likely to cloud an analysis which should be facts-driven and results-oriented.

I may not actually BE a decent human being, but one thing I have in common with all people who are, is that I am strongly against war on principle.

And, watching you post these 1930s-style, backwards, nationalistic views while I have to call you a fellow countryman is pretty horrific. We can be proud of our country without other-ing Americans of difference backgrounds and descents. Or do you think you're the only representation of a good American? I will happily stipulate to the fact that I am one of the vile bigots who, all things being equal, does prefer members of Congress who do not speak with an overseas accent. I'm not a total sh*thead, so I will also happily acknowledge the distinct possibiility that is somewhat unfair to this poor, unfortunate woman who must bear the burden of being a member of the United States House of Representatives. The poor dear.

Don't think I didn't notice you refusing to substantiate your claim.

Fascists love making claims with no citation

The woman was literally born in Ukraine, and is of Ukrainian ethnic heritage. While she did choose to accept the myriad advantages that U.S. citizenship entitles her to, back in the year 2006, none of the articles detailing this fact, mention anything about her having given up her Ukrainian citizenship. I suspect if she had done so, that fact would be easily brought up online. If this person isn't a "Ukrainian woman", then it's not clear the phrase has any meaning what-so-ever. If one of you wishes to stipulate that you believe she has given up her Ukrainian citizenship, then that might be a different matter. I doubt any of you actually believe that, however. Most of you aren't morons, after all. So she's a Ukrainian woman. As I said.

You are a total shithead.

Ukraine doesn’t honor dual citizenship. If a Ukrainian becomes a citizen elsewhere, she is no longer a Ukrainian citizen. Which you could have looked up, if you didn’t want to be a jerk. https://www.unian.info/politics/dual-citizenship-issue-in-ukraine-legislative-initiatives-11357593.html

I'm pretty sure Hikikomori thinks a lot of members are congress are dual citizens, just not Ukrainian

She can't buy a good headline

https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/1621555439325396992

https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1868786207167332506