In the US, the military doesn't choose the targets. Elected civilians do. The way to square those feelings is to direct them at the people who give the top-level orders, and the rhetoric used to support those orders to the public.

There is an entire branch of ethics and philosophy dedicated to the topic: Just War Theory. The US interventions in Serbia and Kuwait were both well-justified in my eyes.

You're not responding to the point the OP is making though. They (and I) are aware that the military isn't making these decisions, and I'm not blaming the military for them. But who gets the blame isn't the question being asked here, it's whether we as individuals should join, and for that the question of blame is irrelevant. I would also serve if there was some kind of guarantee that I would only see deployment in self-defense or against another Hitler. But what I absolutely will not do is be cannon fodder in another imperialist war like Iraq or Afghanistan, and part of serving in the military means you don't get any choice in the matter. So I don't join.

Putting American military boots on the ground in Ukraine would likely escalate to WW3.

So says Putin. So you better give him what he wants.

So mutual assured destruction is what you're advocating for? That's some big brain shit

Ukraine has been attacking targets inside Russia, why haven't they been nuked yet?

Because they don't have nukes. Once a nuclear armed power faces another, then you'll likely have MAD.

Russians would likely shoot at US forces in Ukraine. Then what? I sympathize with the Ukrainian people but Ukraine is not a US treaty ally.

If you're brave enough, the Ukrainian military is accepting volunteers. Other foreigners have already enlisted. Go join them. And I'm not being snarky: if you really believe in the cause then I sincerely think you should do something about it.

The United States is capable of getting involved even if Ukraine is not a treaty ally. I am stating a geopolitical policy preference. Yes, that involves some US soldiers dying.

How very brave of you to offer a sacrifice you won’t have to pay.

You must be young. The same reason for going to war were used back for Iraq (both of them).

The same could be said of pretty much any policy decision

Like they say "The best tax is the one someone else pays".

It doesn't just involve US soldiers dying, it probably means some cities turned to cinders.

There's a line you cannot cross, and wasn't crossed in the entire cold war as bitter as things got-- and that is NATO troops on Russian soil or vice versa.

Ukraine is not Russian soil

I understand the risks

You are advocating conflict escalation and expansion that will drastically shorten the decision tree that ends in the permanent end of human civilization in its present form. Given that the Ukrainians -- with Western material, financial and intelligence support -- appear to be capable of destroying the combat power of the Russian Army in the field without a direct NATO intervention, what you're in effect asking for is to take on the literally largest conceivable risks for minimal added benefit beyond feeling tougher and stronger and like you're doing something, all without personally having to leave your chair. Forgive me if I don't think that's a good trade off.

And as an aside, my personal view is peak nuclear escalation risk is in another 3 or 4 weeks when Russian forces in the east and south hit a similar point of exhaustion/forced withdrawal that we just witnessed in the north. I don't think Putin is going to react well once the news finally penetrates that his miscalculation has destroyed his army and revealed him and the Russian state to be laughingstocks.

You can’t simultaneously claim I’m risking nothing while also encouraging a path with the potential for nuclear war. If the latter is true, the former is not.

I am strongly in favor of military intervention.

I said you would not have to leave your chair, as in you are treating this like a game, as in you are not taking this seriously, as in you are prioritizing your personal emotional satisfaction over any sort of analysis of strategic interest. What do you believe is at stake here that would justify dramatically increasing the probability of a strategic nuclear exchange? I agree that a strategic nuclear exchange is p<.5 in the event of a NATO-Russia war, but how high a probability should we tolerate before the risk-benefit analysis of nato intervention collapses? The end of civilization is an almost unbounded price to pay, and even at a very low probability of occurrence we would still be taking on an extraordinarily expensive risk. So what are we buying for that risk? That Russia loses this war? To the extent that their political objective was to turn Ukraine back into a satellite client state, they’ve already lost. Destruction of the Russian armed forces for a generation? The Ukrainians are already doing yeomans work there. A chance for regime change in Russia? If so we’d be increasing the probability of a strategic nuclear exchange well above .5 then. A chance to punish the cretins who bound and shot, and raped, and tortured civilians to include children? Laudable but many of the immediate perpetrators are likely already dead, and to be frank it’s generally not a good time to risk nuclear war when you are feeling personally outraged. So what then? A chance to feel like you fought the good fight? As others have noted you have every opportunity to personally go fight that fight without NATO involvement, particularly, but not necessarily, if you have infantry or medical training.

I know I’m being an antagonistic asshole, but I would genuinely be curious to know what precise benefit you think nato intervention would achieve and why you value that benefit so highly as to incur near incalculable risk. I’m assuming you haven’t done that analysis, but then I’m an asshole who may be selling you short.

Were you around for the buildup to the second gulf war? The rhetoric against Saddam Hussein was not terribly different in tone than that against Putin. People were similarly outraged and many people wanted us to invade because of all the awful things he did, e.g. his treatment of the Kurds. In fact, pretty much all the major conflicts that have happened in my lifetime have been accompanied by a call to action based on moral outrage. I don't mean to offend, but it seems to me it's people such as yourself who have abetted our participation in so many conflicts, and precious few have been better for our involvement.

Media literacy seems like it was a lot worse back then. I’m not convinced I would ever support the invasion of another country.

I’m not supporting the invasion of Russia. I’m supporting the defense of Ukraine.

I'm fully on board in supporting Ukraine, but the quality of the coverage is no better. I don't often watch TV, particularly American TV, but I was down at a friends recently and he had CNN on and I was like... yep, same old same old, just as bad as it was in the early 2000s. Sensationalistic, simplistic, and highly biased.

Beats the Fox News bias, but still bias.

But, I'm neither liberal or conservative. I'm a socialist, and mainstream politics is pretty alien to me on both "sides."

As much as people want to shit on social media echo chambers, they pale in comparison to television news. Television news is just pathetic.

Understanding this is step one of media literacy.

I was more than around, I was part of the protest movement along with millions of others.

What's happening in Ukraine is entirely different.

Yup. When Biden started dropping “regime change” it was pretty clear the narrative has been set and most are on board.

Would love for American to just sit out the next war.