• PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most of which are armament that the US government already had in its arsenal. You’ve spent the money and now those missiles are actually in use instead of being hold in storage. I’m actually more interested in that 900 USD amount, where did you read or hear that exact number?

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. Missiles being used to kill people in an endless stalemate is actually worse than them sitting in a box
      2. The people sending those missiles to Ukraine are going to buy more to replace them
      3. They’re also going to charge Ukraine for the missiles and insist the country sell off state assets for pennies on the dollar to make payments
    • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know how this brain genius talking point got so popular.

      So things don’t cost money when you already spent money on them? …You don’t think those stocks are going to be replenished having been depleted?

      • PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because it has a point, albeit not perfect. Wouldn’t you rather the US not have a ridiculously big military budget and can divert spending to, say, education and healthcare?

        Sure, it’s great that the US arsenal can obliterate any country in the world should the political powers will it, but this is not the best version of the world, honestly. As you said, it’s your money. Are you okay with it?

        • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, it’s great that the US arsenal can obliterate any country in the world should the political powers will it

          visible-disgust

          Wouldn’t you rather the US not have a ridiculously big military budget and can divert spending to, say, education and healthcare?

          Yes? But this seems like a non sequitur.

    • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And now we have to replenish those arsenals… they absolutely will be replenished.

      Like, if you give all the food in your cupboard to someone, no one would consider that “free”. You have to buy more food!

      This argument seems so foolish I can hardly believe anyone actually thinks this way.

      • PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d rather the companies in my country stop selling those armaments to the US, actually. Maybe this is a good time to review your military budget and ask your government why you have it in the first place?

        • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The same imperial government that lied to its people and provoked a land war in Europe?

          The same one you’re legitimizing in fueling that conflict by implying it’s free?

          Yeah let me call up my boy Biden and tell him no more bombs while you point and laugh at me from behind