The better logical conclusion of that argument is that the US needs to remove him, and replace him with someone who isn't threatening innocent people.

That it won't is a mixture of cowardice, cynical opportunism, and complicity with unprovoked aggression.

In which case, I posit that yes, if you're fine with threatening or inflicting violence on innocent people, you don't have a moral right to 'self-defense'. It makes you a predator, and arming a predator is a mistake.

You lose any moral ground you have when you are an unprovoked aggressor.

Ya go poke people with nukes and see how that works out

You are making an excellent argument for nuclear proliferation.

I'm not a fan of Trump but I also feel he has not been so bad that I think that surrendering the world order to Russia and China is a rational action that minimizes suffering. That seems be an argument that is more about signalling that you really dislike Trump than about a rational consideration of all options available to us.

> I'm not a fan of Trump but I also feel he has not been so bad

He literally threatened a peaceful nation (also an ally) of invasion and annexation. How worse can it get?

If he actually did it that would be far worse.

It's not a shallow, dismissable, just-your-opinion-maaan 'dislike' to observe that he is being an aggressor. Just like it's not a 'dislike' to observe that Putin is being one.

There are more options than arming an aggressor and capitulating to foreign powers. It's a false dichotomy to suggest it.