|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
My fault, should have clarified I was talking to the year amount spent in Afghanistan but even then I guess I was wrong since it would have been closer to 100bn a year roughly going off the 2t estimate. So really it seems like the tax payers are getting a sweet deal!
Kind of shocked at the War-Hawkery in here I figured most of you would be against giving tax payer money to military contractors.
@LL yeah I remember some pages back you had a big back and forth about the VA. I agree with your post here and actually id like to go even further by saying if we could just not get into conflicts in the first place we likely wouldn't need the VA to be so bloated. I do think it is important for people who have served to be taken care of, I just wish there was less of them.
|
Russia has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that there absolutely are "good guys" and "bad guys" in the world and Russia is 100% the bad guys. Having a military and using a military when bad guys are doing bad stuff totally makes sense. Afghanistan did not make sense. Iraq did not make sense. But using our military to prevent Russia from achieving its goals is a great use of equipment.
There was once a time where it was a legitimate question to ask "what's the point" of having a giant military in modern times. Russia has validated the US's strategy of being a major military power 100%.
A year ago I was convinced the big players would never actually drive a bunch of tanks over a border ever again. Then Russia just flat out invaded Ukraine. It is very important to me that the US military be used only when necessary and only for good things. Ukraine is that.
|
@Mohdoo That is sound reasoning for sure but I guess id have to ask, a year or more ago in president Mohdoo's world, or even longer ago maybe 2010 say half way into the Afghan Iraq nightmare would you have waved your wand and ceased the military spending ?
I can understand if this conflict or this insane Russian aggression has changed some peoples minds I just never would have predicted the people who read and post here would be 100% on board with that kind of money being thrown around especially with some of the issues being faced domestically right now. Here's hoping to a swift and peaceful end to this conflict though no doubt and if 40billion leads to that outcome then surely it was well spent.
|
|
|
The government's ability to throw a certain amount of money in one direction doesn't mean it can't also spend money on other things. We've kinda jumped the shark on federal spending and budgeting a while back.
And for me, it's not just some unblinking hate-military-spending position, it's about what that spending accomplishes. When it comes to the US starting wars that don't need to be fought so that we can satisfy our imperialistic urges, yeah I'd rather we didn't. But last I checked, Russia was a country we've been keeping an eye on for a very long time, and for very good reason. So when they violently invade a country that we generally have no problems with, such as Ukraine, it's much easier for me to agree with a chunk of money thrown towards helping them defend themselves. They're under threat of assimilation by a nationalistic regime that is looking to upend international relations and order just to beat a fascist drum.
There's also the fact that if no resistance is given to Russia now, what's to stop them the next time they decide to invade and absorb their neighbors again? That's not just a "make the US the world police" kinda thing, but something every other nation on Earth should be and has been doing. I wouldn't turn a blind eye to the possibilities being opened up there just because I'm anti-war. If it's already being fought and we're already involved either way, that's entirely different.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 23 2022 10:54 Taelshin wrote:
My fault, should have clarified I was talking to the year amount spent in Afghanistan but even then I guess I was wrong since it would have been closer to 100bn a year roughly going off the 2t estimate. So really it seems like the tax payers are getting a sweet deal!
Do keep in mind that, for better or worse, no one is really going to be looking at the price tag right now. Iraq was "supposed to" cost $100 billion based on 2003 estimates; in the end, it cost... a lot more. Similarly, no guarantee that there won't be an additional $60B or $800B carve-out some time later on
The line items in this bill are fairly interesting, and it's not entirely clear to what extent this $40B overlaps versus ends up being on top of the previous US (and other) spending here. Lend-lease, in particular, for all intents and porpoises looks like it was designed to be a blank check and it's not clear how spending for that will be booked.
Wait and see I guess.
|
I'd like to point out that if 40B, even 100B, ends up being all it costs to let Russia ruin itself through sunk cost fallacy, the money could not possibly be better spent. This is an outrageously good deal if it gives Ukraine what it needs to ruin Russia.
What price tag do you put on Sweden and Finland joining NATO? All of Europe realizing war is a real possibility? The dividends this will pay are insane.
|
|
|
@Mohdoo If I'm up to date it sounds like Finland and Sweden are being blocked from joining NATO by Croatia and Turkey. Unsure if you were aware of this. I do agree id like Finland and Sweden to be in NATO.
|
On May 23 2022 15:19 Taelshin wrote:
@Mohdoo If I'm up to date it sounds like Finland and Sweden are being blocked from joining NATO by Croatia and Turkey. Unsure if you were aware of this. I do agree id like Finland and Sweden to be in NATO.
There's a 0% chance that Finland and Sweden will be blocked from joining. It's just how it works when unanimity is required, some members try to use something that everyone wants to get one of their pet issues resolved.
|
On May 23 2022 10:54 Taelshin wrote:
Kind of shocked at the War-Hawkery in here I figured most of you would be against giving tax payer money to military contractors.
A defensive war is a pretty easy sell for most people. Nothing about this is ethically ambigous. This is not going to a country where you are not welcome and trying to control that country "for the better of the people" like most US wars.
This is a pure defensive war on the side of Ukraine. A dictatorship wants to take over a neighbouring country, that country wants to defend itself. This is a situation most people can easily get behind.
None of that murky geopolitical realpolitik war profiteering oil stuff that tends to be around wars most of the time. People understand defending yourself, and support that.
|
On May 23 2022 11:24 Taelshin wrote:
@Mohdoo That is sound reasoning for sure but I guess id have to ask, a year or more ago in president Mohdoo's world, or even longer ago maybe 2010 say half way into the Afghan Iraq nightmare would you have waved your wand and ceased the military spending ?
I can understand if this conflict or this insane Russian aggression has changed some peoples minds I just never would have predicted the people who read and post here would be 100% on board with that kind of money being thrown around especially with some of the issues being faced domestically right now. Here's hoping to a swift and peaceful end to this conflict though no doubt and if 40billion leads to that outcome then surely it was well spent. I think its important to point out that no one, as far as I know, wants to actually 'cease' military spending.
The US should have a well equipped, well trained professional military capable of reacting to situations across the world.
The issue is that you can probably attain that without spending more then the next 9 biggest spenders combined. You can half the military's 800 billion budget, spend 400 billion extra a year on helping Americans get proper healthcare, education and a brighter future and still be the single biggest military spender in the world.
|
On May 23 2022 10:54 Taelshin wrote:
My fault, should have clarified I was talking to the year amount spent in Afghanistan but even then I guess I was wrong since it would have been closer to 100bn a year roughly going off the 2t estimate. So really it seems like the tax payers are getting a sweet deal!
Kind of shocked at the War-Hawkery in here I figured most of you would be against giving tax payer money to military contractors.
@LL yeah I remember some pages back you had a big back and forth about the VA. I agree with your post here and actually id like to go even further by saying if we could just not get into conflicts in the first place we likely wouldn't need the VA to be so bloated. I do think it is important for people who have served to be taken care of, I just wish there was less of them.
Yeah I am sure you are shocked at the warhawkery and not just simping for Putin and his genocidal regime.
|
Northern Ireland25514 Posts
On May 23 2022 11:24 Taelshin wrote:
@Mohdoo That is sound reasoning for sure but I guess id have to ask, a year or more ago in president Mohdoo's world, or even longer ago maybe 2010 say half way into the Afghan Iraq nightmare would you have waved your wand and ceased the military spending ?
I can understand if this conflict or this insane Russian aggression has changed some peoples minds I just never would have predicted the people who read and post here would be 100% on board with that kind of money being thrown around especially with some of the issues being faced domestically right now. Here's hoping to a swift and peaceful end to this conflict though no doubt and if 40billion leads to that outcome then surely it was well spent.
Broadly speaking it’s the US, plus a large swathe of other countries, and it’s bookended with non-military sanctions. With a clear incidence of aggression from one side to boot.
I mean it’s as close to how I think conflict resolution should be approached in this day and age. Ideally further military cooperation and spreading the load and operating purely in peacekeeping where required. Not a viable concern with this conflict, but would be prudent in many other theatres present or future.
I dont really care that much about the money, because I doubt that gets redeployed elsewhere if it’s not spent here.
Been around long enough already to have seen multiple ill-advised military excursions, a wholesale bank bailout and a whole propping up of economies through a global pandemic.
Multitude of what would be required for meaningful social welfare reforms, or whatever cause I think would be sensible investments for general well-being. Money can always be found for other things it’s a matter of will, if there’s not a will it doesn’t happen so I don’t see the Ukraine aid taking away from something that isn’t occurring anyway
|
On May 23 2022 15:19 Taelshin wrote:
@Mohdoo If I'm up to date it sounds like Finland and Sweden are being blocked from joining NATO by Croatia and Turkey. Unsure if you were aware of this. I do agree id like Finland and Sweden to be in NATO.
Erdogan is just doing this to get something for turkeys economic crisis. Some trade deal will be put on the table and thatll be the end of it. He's in that kind of situation and it aint getting better.
|
Northern Ireland25514 Posts
Oh but that’s an unfair interpretation of what she said, she obviously meant via hyperbole that the church is such a part of the cultural fabric that Georgia is de facto Christian, nothing sinister about eroding the barriers between Church and State!
Happy cake day brother!
|
|
|
On May 24 2022 02:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2022 01:37 WombaT wrote:Oh but that’s an unfair interpretation of what she said, she obviously meant via hyperbole that the church is such a part of the cultural fabric that Georgia is de facto Christian, nothing sinister about eroding the barriers between Church and State! Happy cake day brother! Thank you sir! It is very hard to keep up with when you need to trust their words and when you need yo know they mean something very different.
If you make a mistake, it's on you. You should've known better.
Also they clearly don't mean that.
|
"Jesus, Guns, Babies". Truly what we want out of government in the 21st century.
|
On May 23 2022 23:44 ghost7754 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2022 10:54 Taelshin wrote:
My fault, should have clarified I was talking to the year amount spent in Afghanistan but even then I guess I was wrong since it would have been closer to 100bn a year roughly going off the 2t estimate. So really it seems like the tax payers are getting a sweet deal!
Kind of shocked at the War-Hawkery in here I figured most of you would be against giving tax payer money to military contractors.
@LL yeah I remember some pages back you had a big back and forth about the VA. I agree with your post here and actually id like to go even further by saying if we could just not get into conflicts in the first place we likely wouldn't need the VA to be so bloated. I do think it is important for people who have served to be taken care of, I just wish there was less of them. Yeah I am sure you are shocked at the warhawkery and not just simping for Putin and his genocidal regime.
I really don't get the takes like this. The people that say you're a Putin supporter or a Putin ass kisser like the Fox News guy said if you don't support the massive amounts of aid on the war is not fair at all.
It at least merits a debate or discussion. Personally I don't think spending tens of billions on a proxy war is right with all the problems at home. The goal should be for peace not weakening Russia and making sure the military industrial complex gets their taste when the war is causing big problems for the U.S. as well (gas prices) Again, just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
