Also has this amazing comment:
Suggesting the defender in a war should just stop fighting, or that helping them is bad because if they did not have the ability to defend themselves, they'd quickly be unable to fight and the war would end with their defeat, is not anti-war. It is appeasement, and that is ultimately pro-war, because it creates a situation in which starting wars of aggression can benefit the ones who start them, which inevitably leads to more wars being started. To be against war, in the long term, one must support a situation in which starting wars is against the self-interest of those in the position to do so, and one of the clearest ways to do that is to try to ensure that those who begin wars of conquest or other such aggression, lose them.
https://hexbear.net/post/336083
doesn’t cost the US taxpayer a single cent
…do they not know that militaries need to replenish their stocks?
I think that's a lot of the motivation for the US. Get rid of old stuff so they can buy shitloads of new stuff and everyone gets a new house in Raytheon Acres.
Yeah. A lot of the money appropriated for Ukraine went right in to the accounts of US arms companies.
Even fucking then, by their liberal logic, maintaining the upkeep of such global military stock and their market depreciation over time would be more expensive than fixing up Maui long-term...
They allow their understanding of the world to just be good guys vs. bad guys, and why would it ever be wrong to "help" the good guys?
Also... extremely gullible. Haven't learned how to do basic media literacy so they are easily pulled into bloodlust.
Also... extremely gullible. Haven't learned how to do basic media literacy
Yep, am living in a society where 95% of the people have this problem.
Suggesting the defender in a war should just stop fighting, or that helping them is bad because if they did not have the ability to defend themselves, they'd quickly be unable to fight and the war would end with their defeat, is not anti-war. It is appeasement, and that is ultimately pro-war, because it creates a situation in which starting wars of aggression can benefit the ones who start them, which inevitably leads to more wars being started. To be against war, in the long term, one must support a situation in which starting wars is against the self-interest of those in the position to do so, and one of the clearest ways to do that is to try to ensure that those who begin wars of conquest or other such aggression, lose them.
Okay, you've convinced me. Let's start arming Niger.
We are unironically 100% going to be arming Moderate Rebels and Brave Mujaheddin Freedom Fighters in Niger within the next year.
"It doesnt cost the taxpayer anything to transport thousands of tons of military hardware across multiple oceans and continents no siree!"
appeasement
Libs and having a completely a-historical understanding of the inter-war period. A match made in hell.
it creates a situation in which starting wars of aggression can benefit the ones who start them, which inevitably leads to more wars being started.
lol domino theory. It's still amazing to me people can say this with a straight face after all the warmongering adventures NATO goes on.
o be against war, in the long term, one must support a situation in which starting wars is against the self-interest of those in the position to do so, and one of the clearest ways to do that is to try to ensure that those who begin wars of conquest or other such aggression, lose them.
but literally. "War is Peace." Just right out and said it.
Also, at least some of these people must have played Civilization or an equivalent 4x game. If they saw an extremely hostile alliance encircling them they'd know they were about to be attacked. But somehow, in real life...
They are sending older, used equipment worth X billion which doesn't cost the US taxpayer a single cent. They might even save money as the government no longer has to pay for storage.
Pure, weapon's grade, unequivocal -tier nonsense.
Incidentally, The Pentagon’s $35 Trillion Accounting Black Hole was also actually good because it was just all old used materials / requisitioned labor that we can just not keep track of anymore.
Listen, you idiots. You fucking imbicles. When we say we're sending $X Billion worth of stuff, we're not actually sending anything at all. And what we are sending is good! And also, its good for our economy! But its even more gooder for the people who are getting the stuff that we just told you is worthless. Because now they can use it to kill Orks. And when you kill and Ork it drops loot. Which is a thing that Ukrainians pick up and use to invest in their medival economy. They can build towers and barracks and alchemist labs and advance their tech tree until they can get dragons. Isn't that what you want, you stupid fucking idiots?
So the next time you hear someone tell you that the US is spending money on war, tell them to shut the fuck up and stop letting the US make money selling Ukraine dragons. Fucking morons.
To be against war, in the long term, one must support a situation in which starting wars is against the self-interest
"self interest"
"We need more capitalist ideology not less!" ok radlib
Eh, I hope that this isn't the struggle session that blahaj and hexbear end up defedding over
Most of the stuff on that instance is fine, besides the annoying "fuck tankies" banner that I wish they'd get rid of. I actually really like posting there and do follow the Rule ( ). It's really only this one piece of shit liberal who loves death and destruction that I have issue with.
Me, to a bunch of stupid tankies: "Actually I am unequivocally pro-tank"
First of all, we are sending Ukraine money, called "Direct Budget Support", because their economy and tax base has already collapsed.
To date, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has obligated $22.9 billion of the appropriated funding for direct financial support for the Government of Ukraine's (GOU's) central budget.
That's from the Congressional Research Service in January 2023, the totalis even higher now. I am sure the famously corrupt politicians of Eastern Europe and especially Ukraine are spending it very wisely to promote freedom and democracy etc...
To be against war, in the long term, one must support a situation in which starting wars is against the self-interest of those in the position to do so, and one of the clearest ways to do that is to try to ensure that those who begin wars of conquest or other such aggression, lose them.
This is a subtle attempt to make war look like the obvious "clear" option, but principles of negotiation and reciprocity have historically accomplished great things in creating a more peaceful international order. Typical unipolar Yankee brainworms to see crushing all global opposition as the "clear" path to world peace.
And then the military sees that it has fewer tanks and shit than it did before, and orders the most expensive and newest stuff to replenish the armory.