You’re conflating two different things: defending allies against invasion (Ukraine, Taiwan) and unilateral regime change (Venezuela, Iraq, Libya).

I agree that deterrence requires credible force. Defending Ukraine from Russian invasion is enforcement of a principle (sovereignty) against an aggressor. That’s fundamentally different from the US deciding a government is bad and removing it.

The problem isn’t “using force ever.” It’s “using force to overthrow governments we don’t like, without allies, without a plan for what comes next, based on a track record of catastrophic failures.”

Norway’s security depends on NATO credibility, which depends on the US being seen as a rule-enforcing power rather than a rule-breaking one. Every time the US acts unilaterally, it makes it harder to maintain the coalitions that actually protect your way of life. Russia points to Iraq and Libya to justify its own actions. You’re not strengthening the enforcement regime; you’re eroding the legitimacy that makes enforcement possible.

“Fucked around and found out” is a framework for bar fights, not foreign policy.

China has a good economy and export business that it wants to protect, which “protects” Taiwan since much of their export business goes poof if they decide to invade the island. The “detachment” of the US and Chinese economies makes an invasion of Taiwan more likely, not less. Economic entanglement has led to more peace than military force projection.

The EU isn’t my utopia, and I’m not sure where you got that. My point is narrower: unilateral regime change has a bad track record, and defending allies against invasion is a different category of action. You seem to be arguing against a position I don’t hold.

We’ve gone from “Venezuelans are celebrating” to “the EU is spineless bureaucrats.” I think we’re past the original topic of discussion at this point.