5 ms·

>The tragedy is that the better projects were never on the agenda of power at all. The tragedy is that the one thing that those with power and influence could a

>The tragedy is that the better projects were never on the agenda of power at all. The tragedy is that the one thing that those with power and influence could agree on was war-fighting. There's not much more I can add to this. Society is made up of choices and we chose to slaughter people around the world instead of choosing to provide healthcare, education, or any other constructive benefit.

titzer 5y ago
Generations of mal-investment.
ndnxmsm 5y ago
Who is we?
adventured 5y ago
> instead of choosing to provide healthcare, education, or any other constructive benefit The US spends more per capita on healthcare and education than any other nation, by far. The US didn't choose not to provide healthcare or education. If you wanted to solve the healthcare equation in the US, you wouldn't need to spend an additional dime. Just bring US healthcare costs into alignment with Britain's NHS and the bottom ~45% of the country would be covered by Medicaid's existing outlays. Spending trillions more on healthcare would be the dumbest thing we could do, next to invading Iraq. We need to smash costs downward and spread healthcare wide, not continue the cost inflation spiral; you rationally do that without spending more than we already are. The same goes for education, the last thing we need is to spend more on education, we need to actually start getting a good return on our outrageous education spending, and push cost out of the system simultaneously. > Society is made up of choices and we chose to slaughter people around the world It's certainly true the US should have never invaded Iraq and should not have stayed in Afghanistan so long. Slaughter people? Bull. The US overwhelmingly did the opposite of slaughtering people. It lost trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers trying to keep people from slaughtering each other, trying to prop up central governments (which has largely succeeded in Iraq). It stepped inbetween civil wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you seeing what the Taliban are doing right now? That's one group of Afghanis trying to kill/enslave/conquer the rest. Regional warlords are already right back to fighting for territorial gains. That was going on before the US invaded. It'll be going on in another 50 years too. The US neither created the Taliban (despite what propaganda to the contrary claims) nor caused the civil war in Afghanistan; the US did step into the ongoing Afghanistan civil war, assisting the Northern Alliance at first and then fully invading second to prop up a new central government. Do you know why so many people are fleeing from the Taliban and seeking escape with the US at the airport? Specifically because it was the US that was not trying to slaughter people in Afghanistan. The Taliban are the slaughtering group the US was trying to get rid of. If the US were the slaughtering faction, people would be running in terror from the US instead of seeking safety with the US. If the US were the slaughtering faction, those thousands of Afghani refugees landing at Dulles in Virginia would be getting executed at the airport on arrival. The civil war in Iraq was directly caused by the US overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and that civil war was inevitable regardless of US involvement. That internal religious conflict has very long tentacles in history, going back many hundreds of years. Most of those deaths listed on that page are directly from internal warring factions within the nations, killing each other in civil war. Not from the US "slaughtering" people. Those conflicts existed before the US and they will exist after the US. Which, again, is also not an argument for the US invading Iraq and doesn't excuse the stupidity of the US invading. There was no scenario where Saddam was going to be displaced and Iraq wasn't going to fall into a civil war, especially given the minority oppressor vs majority oppressed conflict that Saddam's power represented. Iraq wasn't stable before the US invaded, it was a disaster of instability, genocide and terror, which is why Saddam had to constantly purge and murder people to retain power. When you have stability, you don't have to do that. The US released a hyper oppressed majority population in Iraq, it's no wonder there were violent consequences to that; those consequences were always unavoidable, no matter how Saddam was removed. What's the counter premise? Saddam should have stayed in power forever, or that Saddam was going to be peacefully removed from power and it was going to be a lovefest? It's an ignorant fantasy. The US had a moral right to step in and help the Iraqi people, who were under occupation by Saddam's dictatorship (especially true of the majority Shia), every bit as much as it had a moral right to step in and help the French people cast off the Nazis. The US had a moral right to help the people of Afghanistan depose the Taliban, every bit as much as the US had a moral right to help nations in Eastern Europe cast off the shackles of the USSR. The Soviets were no better than the Taliban ideologically. The people of Europe are no more worthy of help than the people of Iraq or Afghanistan. Which also doesn't mean it was in the US self-interest to get involved in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
3009629147 5y ago
Who is "we"? Afaik the U.S. military power structure is based on soldiers obeying orders they receive from their superior.
hash872 5y ago
The United States spends more on healthcare just for the elderly as it does its entire, famous military budget. The spends 70% more on Medicare & Medicaid combined, than the entire military budget. It spends more than three times as much on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid than on the entire military budget. If you add in PPP, unemployment, and the stimulus checks, you're looking at 4-5x more social spending than entire military budget. Here, look at the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office yourself: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170

titzer 5y ago

Generations of mal-investment.

ndnxmsm 5y ago

Who is we?

adventured 5y ago

> instead of choosing to provide healthcare, education, or any other constructive benefit The US spends more per capita on healthcare and education than any other nation, by far. The US didn't choose not to provide healthcare or education. If you wanted to solve the healthcare equation in the US, you wouldn't need to spend an additional dime. Just bring US healthcare costs into alignment with Britain's NHS and the bottom ~45% of the country would be covered by Medicaid's existing outlays. Spending trillions more on healthcare would be the dumbest thing we could do, next to invading Iraq. We need to smash costs downward and spread healthcare wide, not continue the cost inflation spiral; you rationally do that without spending more than we already are. The same goes for education, the last thing we need is to spend more on education, we need to actually start getting a good return on our outrageous education spending, and push cost out of the system simultaneously. > Society is made up of choices and we chose to slaughter people around the world It's certainly true the US should have never invaded Iraq and should not have stayed in Afghanistan so long. Slaughter people? Bull. The US overwhelmingly did the opposite of slaughtering people. It lost trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers trying to keep people from slaughtering each other, trying to prop up central governments (which has largely succeeded in Iraq). It stepped inbetween civil wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you seeing what the Taliban are doing right now? That's one group of Afghanis trying to kill/enslave/conquer the rest. Regional warlords are already right back to fighting for territorial gains. That was going on before the US invaded. It'll be going on in another 50 years too. The US neither created the Taliban (despite what propaganda to the contrary claims) nor caused the civil war in Afghanistan; the US did step into the ongoing Afghanistan civil war, assisting the Northern Alliance at first and then fully invading second to prop up a new central government. Do you know why so many people are fleeing from the Taliban and seeking escape with the US at the airport? Specifically because it was the US that was not trying to slaughter people in Afghanistan. The Taliban are the slaughtering group the US was trying to get rid of. If the US were the slaughtering faction, people would be running in terror from the US instead of seeking safety with the US. If the US were the slaughtering faction, those thousands of Afghani refugees landing at Dulles in Virginia would be getting executed at the airport on arrival. The civil war in Iraq was directly caused by the US overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and that civil war was inevitable regardless of US involvement. That internal religious conflict has very long tentacles in history, going back many hundreds of years. Most of those deaths listed on that page are directly from internal warring factions within the nations, killing each other in civil war. Not from the US "slaughtering" people. Those conflicts existed before the US and they will exist after the US. Which, again, is also not an argument for the US invading Iraq and doesn't excuse the stupidity of the US invading. There was no scenario where Saddam was going to be displaced and Iraq wasn't going to fall into a civil war, especially given the minority oppressor vs majority oppressed conflict that Saddam's power represented. Iraq wasn't stable before the US invaded, it was a disaster of instability, genocide and terror, which is why Saddam had to constantly purge and murder people to retain power. When you have stability, you don't have to do that. The US released a hyper oppressed majority population in Iraq, it's no wonder there were violent consequences to that; those consequences were always unavoidable, no matter how Saddam was removed. What's the counter premise? Saddam should have stayed in power forever, or that Saddam was going to be peacefully removed from power and it was going to be a lovefest? It's an ignorant fantasy. The US had a moral right to step in and help the Iraqi people, who were under occupation by Saddam's dictatorship (especially true of the majority Shia), every bit as much as it had a moral right to step in and help the French people cast off the Nazis. The US had a moral right to help the people of Afghanistan depose the Taliban, every bit as much as the US had a moral right to help nations in Eastern Europe cast off the shackles of the USSR. The Soviets were no better than the Taliban ideologically. The people of Europe are no more worthy of help than the people of Iraq or Afghanistan. Which also doesn't mean it was in the US self-interest to get involved in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

3009629147 5y ago

Who is "we"? Afaik the U.S. military power structure is based on soldiers obeying orders they receive from their superior.

hash872 5y ago

The United States spends more on healthcare just for the elderly as it does its entire, famous military budget. The spends 70% more on Medicare & Medicaid combined, than the entire military budget. It spends more than three times as much on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid than on the entire military budget. If you add in PPP, unemployment, and the stimulus checks, you're looking at 4-5x more social spending than entire military budget. Here, look at the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office yourself: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170