People aay the strangest things to justify our military spending.
I remember once someone responded to the budget increase by saying that "they need to pay the troops, their was a raise for them in the budget." Do they believe even 1 of those 800+ billions annually goes to paying da troops? A lot of military families are on SNAP, they pay them shit. You could give them a raise and still not scratch the defense budget
I remember once someone responded to the budget increase by saying that "they need to pay the troops, their was a raise for them in the budget." Do they believe even 1 of those 800+ billions annually goes to paying da troops? A lot of military families are on SNAP, they pay them shit. You could give them a raise and still not scratch the defense budget
Surely nothing bad will come out of a state not feeding its own troops https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023/01/what-it-means-for-hunger-to-burn-through-the-pentagons-ranks.html
It's not an opinion that providing weapons is cheaper than providing soldiers. And it's certainly not an opinion about the merits of being involved in the first place.
Factually, if you're going to be involved, weapons are cheaper than boots. That's it. I don't like being involved at all.
The way how your comment was phrased, it look like you were saying the bulk of US military spending is on veteran care, which would be an absurd claim.
There was a citation in the original post. The screenshot cut it off.
The total cost of the US post-9/11 wars is $8 trillion by 2050, approximately 1/3 of which will go to veteran care and the majority of which has not yet been paid.
Yes, 1/3 by 2050 is not most. My bad.
Yes, it will continue to rise after 2050.
The statement that funding another country's military is cheaper than putting boots on the ground isn't a hot take or even a position. It is objectively true.
I don't like war. I'm not cheering for war. I don't endorse the parent post's take about it being a proxy war (have you never contributed to a conversation while simultaneously suppressing the urge to ackchyually the other person?). And I do hope that humanitarian assistance is provided down the line by the parties involved.
Call it a proxy war, or don't. It doesn't make any difference to me what people want to label it. That doesn't change the objective truth about the cost difference. Either way, I would love more of my tax dollars to be steered away from war and toward the problems in my own country.
The statement that funding another country's military is cheaper than putting boots on the ground isn't a hot take or even a position. It is objectively true.
No one here is arguing about the accounting (aside from doubting that most of it is going to the VA). Of course its cheaper! Its also a disgusting and ghoulish thing to endorse. That's why it got posted here.
I don't like war. I'm not cheering for war. I don't endorse the parent post's take about it being a proxy war (have you never contributed to a conversation while simultaneously suppressing the urge to ackchyually the other person?).
I'm not enthusiastic enough about accounting to view a gross and inhuman statement that endorses "fighting to the last Ukrainian" because its cheaper and good for US empire, and think, "well its horrible, but i can't argue with that math."
And that's not an "akshually" that's a statement of principle. NATO supporting ghouls are no better than the nazis they arm and support. They deserve a spot in the pit next to them
That doesn't change the objective truth about the cost difference
If that's what you care enough about to post over here, or see statements endorsing proxy war and only care enough to congratulate their objectively true math, then fuck you.
You can say you hate war all you want, but when it comes down to it you don't care about them making a nakedly evil and indefensiblely ghoulish position, you care more about math so
Have you considered that I agree with your take, and that I think this is the sort of callous justification that the bean counters use when making these sorts of decisions?
No I havent, and i don't care what you claim to believe. Say you are against war all you want. You saw a post say dead Ukrainians and Russians is good for the US, and that the US paying for it all is good because its cheaper. And your first reaction was, "math checks out."
That's even how you were just trying to justify it a moment ago. You didn't say, that person is wrong and I'm actually against NATO and this kind of thinking. You said its not even a take, just "objectively true math."
"Long-term most of the funding actually goes to the VA"
Dumb opinions about a heavily propagandize war an ocean away is one thing.
But this? this is the kind of delusion that calls everything else you say into question
People aay the strangest things to justify our military spending.
I remember once someone responded to the budget increase by saying that "they need to pay the troops, their was a raise for them in the budget." Do they believe even 1 of those 800+ billions annually goes to paying da troops? A lot of military families are on SNAP, they pay them shit. You could give them a raise and still not scratch the defense budget
Surely nothing bad will come out of a state not feeding its own troops https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023/01/what-it-means-for-hunger-to-burn-through-the-pentagons-ranks.html
Not to mention all the homeless veterans too. It's a disgrace.
Its a disgrace because homelessness is man made and easily solvable. Not because some were troops. Fuck the troops
It's not an opinion that providing weapons is cheaper than providing soldiers. And it's certainly not an opinion about the merits of being involved in the first place.
Factually, if you're going to be involved, weapons are cheaper than boots. That's it. I don't like being involved at all.
The way how your comment was phrased, it look like you were saying the bulk of US military spending is on veteran care, which would be an absurd claim.
There was a citation in the original post. The screenshot cut it off.
The total cost of the US post-9/11 wars is $8 trillion by 2050, approximately 1/3 of which will go to veteran care and the majority of which has not yet been paid.
Yes, 1/3 by 2050 is not most. My bad.
Yes, it will continue to rise after 2050.
The statement that funding another country's military is cheaper than putting boots on the ground isn't a hot take or even a position. It is objectively true.
I don't like war. I'm not cheering for war. I don't endorse the parent post's take about it being a proxy war (have you never contributed to a conversation while simultaneously suppressing the urge to ackchyually the other person?). And I do hope that humanitarian assistance is provided down the line by the parties involved.
Call it a proxy war, or don't. It doesn't make any difference to me what people want to label it. That doesn't change the objective truth about the cost difference. Either way, I would love more of my tax dollars to be steered away from war and toward the problems in my own country.
The screenshot did not cut it off. You added it later in an edit.
No one here is arguing about the accounting (aside from doubting that most of it is going to the VA). Of course its cheaper! Its also a disgusting and ghoulish thing to endorse. That's why it got posted here.
I'm not enthusiastic enough about accounting to view a gross and inhuman statement that endorses "fighting to the last Ukrainian" because its cheaper and good for US empire, and think, "well its horrible, but i can't argue with that math."
And that's not an "akshually" that's a statement of principle. NATO supporting ghouls are no better than the nazis they arm and support. They deserve a spot in the pit next to them
If that's what you care enough about to post over here, or see statements endorsing proxy war and only care enough to congratulate their objectively true math, then fuck you.
You can say you hate war all you want, but when it comes down to it you don't care about them making a nakedly evil and indefensiblely ghoulish position, you care more about math so
Have you considered that I agree with your take, and that I think this is the sort of callous justification that the bean counters use when making these sorts of decisions?
No I havent, and i don't care what you claim to believe. Say you are against war all you want. You saw a post say dead Ukrainians and Russians is good for the US, and that the US paying for it all is good because its cheaper. And your first reaction was, "math checks out."
That's even how you were just trying to justify it a moment ago. You didn't say, that person is wrong and I'm actually against NATO and this kind of thinking. You said its not even a take, just "objectively true math."
I understand your position. I have edited the original post to add context.