I think they would give peace a chance if there was a chance Russia might withdraw, or if what's left of Ukraine could join NATO.

There is a difference between peace and surrender, because that's basically that what Trumps proposes to appease Putin.

To oppose that isn't warmongering.

I don't think the Republicans, who champion freedom above all else usually, are making a whole lot better showing of themselves championing occupation, while simultainously making asinine arguments about how not doing so is a mere performative battle against Trump (supposedly), or runs contrary to peace itself. Mind you, these are the same people who want guns everywhere for people to "protect themselves" with, and will share around security footage from shops cackling, where the shop owner turns the third robber in a year into swiss cheese.

It really makes me wonder what kind of moral background is required to find supporting subservience through disgusting remarks less despicable than a hypocritical-or-not supporting of a hopeless fight. Like genuinely, how does one get to that point?

Although to be honest with you, the pushback using this argument doesn't seem nearly thought through enough for this. Instead, it's a mere spasmic reaction where people found a catchy clapback to the peace quote, and then end-of-proof right there. Great job indeed...

> they see Ukrainians as worthless pawns in their battle against Trump.

I don't think anyone does that.

WTF? Battle against Trump? Oh right, being on the reasonable side of anything makes one a "never-Trumper". Trump has nothing to do with it. He's not relevant to every decision everybody makes, and every opinion they have, just because you think he's the second coming.

Here's a great example of the "victim mentality" that has taken over the US of late.

Most of the Democrats who are good on foreign policy are republicans now (Gababrd). The Democratic Party was taken over by neocons (Hillary Clinton).