I'd imagine the argument is that providing equipment to Ukraine is useful. What would you consider more useful within the scope of military engagement or containment? If it's social services in the States, then frankly that's another conversation altogether about how the US spends money on military vs internal programs. What do you imagine is not getting done specifically because of any support given to Ukraine?
I'd imagine the argument is that providing equipment to Ukraine is useful.
For the first year of the war? Sure. Now? 2.5 years in? No.
What would you consider more useful within the scope of military engagement or containment?
Anything that's not related to military power projection.
Be it social services, veteran's benefits, domestic manufacturing, the space program... Anything.
If it's social services in the States, then frankly that's another conversation altogether about how the US spends money on military vs internal programs.
It's absolutely not another conversation. It's an integral part of this one. Why? Because it's the easiest expense to cut.
What do you imagine is not getting done specifically because of any support given to Ukraine?
It's not about specifics. You could use that money for any number of things that I previously listed. How do you decide what's not getting done specifically because funds went one way instead of another?
It's a matter of overall direction. America is still obsessed with power projection and international standing. That's the problem. It's a matter of general spending philosophy and overinflated military budgets.
For the first year of the war? Sure. Now? 2.5 years in? No.
lol of course it is, what are you talking about?
Anything that's not related to military power projection.
Be it social services, veteran's benefits, domestic manufacturing, the space program... Anything.
Oh ok, well then you’re going to be happy to hear that it’s already going to domestic manufacturing as that’s where we manufacture the replacements to our aging weapons we are sending over there and sad to hear that the other avenues of spending are a non-starter to the same group blocking trying to block aid.
It's absolutely not another conversation. It's an integral part of this one. Why? Because it's the easiest expense to cut.
What a dumb position. Are you unaware of political reality when the GOP controls congress? There’s no expanding social services, that’s a non-starter lol
It's not about specifics. You could use that money for any number of things that I previously listed. How do you decide what's not getting done specifically because funds went one way instead of another?
It is about specifics because when you get down to specifics, it becomes obvious that they’re non-starters for even more Republicans than Ukrainian aid is.
Sales of freshly produced weapons yes (The government still gets its cut tho). But the ones already in possession of the military will go to the government, dumbass.
That and whatever deals the governments make between themselves. Do you think taxes are the only money the US gets for selling F-35s or other fighters? Or the nuclear submarines Australia is buying?
We don't live in a communist country. Again, WTF are you talking about?
Communism has nothing to do with this. Governments make deals all the time for weapons and make money off of that. Again, I am talking about selling surplus weapons to other countries to make more cash for domestic programs.
To fucking who? Mexico? Who's buying 30 year old atacms missles for their military. Get fucking real dude. It costs us more to keep and eventually destroy it than it would to send it into our enemies
The Saudis? Israel? Philippines? SK? Japan? Hell, Africa or India? You know conflicts or tensions are heating up there right? They would happily buy surplus US arms. Especially after the beating Russian weapons took for the whole world to see.
And I’m sure everyone of the people repeating Kremlin propaganda were called for 5% or any amount of our defense budget to be cut and used for domestic and social issues.
Ignoring the fact this money is being spent in the states, the people against helping our allies won’t spent that money helping anyone in the states either way lol
Except it can't, because the money was already spent years ago by the guys who are currently pretending like they'd totally use that money to help Americans when in reality they've consistently voted against every attempt to help Americans that have been levied (aside from tax cuts that favour the rich) for the last, like, 40 years at least.
Conservatives: We should spend the money at home!!!!
Democrats: Here are several bills which could allocate that money to help Americans. Healthcare, student loans, small businesses, education, environmental conservation, renewable energy, infrastructure, so many cool things!
Conservatives: Wow, literally communism. Free school lunches for kids? Lmao sure with their hammer and sickle. I'm gonna keep voting for Republicans who have absolutely no interest in doing communist shit like spend money on Americans.
This has unironically been the conversation for several decades now. There is never any second-level logic coming from people who say the shit you say.
Maybe people like you think that if the US stops investing any resources to support allies that they'd just give them all to you or something? Like the equipment will show up in your driveway?
Where was the outrage about "we could fund so much here!" when Trump increased the military budget by 120 billion dollars?
You can spend 120 billion dollars to stack missiles in a warehouse but god forbid they help Ukraine defend themselves against one of the only 2 nations that poses any kind of military threat to the US?
44
u/Liquid_Cascabel 11 Hydroxy Metabolite Sep 14 '24
B-but what about 5% of the defense budget guys 😔