5 ms·

Seven hundred billion dollars a year and we can't even defend the weak unless it looks profitable on the balance sheet. Never have I been more ashamed to be Am

by causi 5y ago

Seven hundred billion dollars a year and we can't even defend the weak unless it looks profitable on the balance sheet. Never have I been more ashamed to be American than I was yesterday.

unethical_ban 5y ago
I don't think money is the primary reason the US is holding off. Perhaps it's the population of the US not yet demanding intervention, maybe it's the idea that Russians and Americans openly shooting at each other means an actual continental war in Europe with nuclear powers.
systemvoltage 5y ago
- causi 5y ago
  Would defending Ukraine with US soldiers be good for the US? Absolutely not. The best outcome for the US is if Ukraine turns into a Vietnam for Russia for the next couple decades, with high casualties for the Russians and high casualties among Ukrainian civilians to keep the whole world strongly against Russia. That doesn't make it right, though. The right thing to do is to help other people even when it doesn't benefit you.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    Let me refer you to Game Theory 101 by Professor William Spaniel on this very thing you're talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ryYvEOm4eA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ryYvEOm4eA
  - octopoc 5y ago
    > The right thing to do is to help other people even when it doesn't benefit you. Why does it have to be the American men and women getting killed? Russia is never going to cross the ocean and attack us, and if they did they would never win. Why can't the EU defend itself? It ought to be strong enough. If the EU is sustainable it should be able to defend itself without outsourcing 95% of its defense to a foreign power across an ocean. I get that they were weak after WWII but for crying out loud they've had 70 years to recover from that. As an American, I am sick and tired of my nation getting involved in foreign wars because "it's the right thing to do."
    - causi 5y ago
      Ukraine is not in the EU.
      - SllX 5y ago
        If it expands beyond Ukraine any further westward it will be immediately NATO’s and the EU’s problem.
    - actuator 5y ago
      Oh, this is more on the European nations definitely. Outsourcing their defense to US and being so weak that they can't even do sanctions properly because they need to buy that sweet gas from them.
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
      The EU sat on it's thumbs while Milosevic ran another mass extermination campaign in europe until the US stepped in. They will never take a proactive stance on their own initiative.
- actuator 5y ago
  If we can't even defend weak from a bully, what's the point of anything; specially when they seem to be asking for help. There are much unjustified and unasked for interventions that have been done even in the recent past. Are all our morals and ideals just for convenience.
  - SllX 5y ago
    This isn’t the goddamned playground with a bigger kid picking on a smaller kid. These are two nations at War and nobody has a defense pact or commitment with Ukraine because the concern was that making that pact would inevitably lead to a Russia-NATO war. Our morals and ideals are not universally shared by our adversaries, and our adversaries include two Nuclear powers with ICBMs. One of them is the instigator in this conflict. So yeah, it would be more than just a little inconvenient to get into a shooting war with the Russians because Europe realistically may not actually survive the conflict and our saving grace would be what, at least Russia didn’t either?
    - ROTMetro 5y ago
      Just for clarity, Ukraine pleaded for the defense pact, we refused it because the other side scared us too much. Sure seems like a playground bully. But yeah, stand by the 'we didn't get involved because then Russia would invade', wooh, that worked out well. I think the path you support is leading to a more unstable nuclear environment then if we would have been firm. But sure, it's just Czechoslovakia, I mean Ukraine they are after (never mind their actual words). And this doesn't destabilize the whole Taiwan China calculus (oh wait, it does). Yep, safer.
      - SllX 5y ago
        Three things: 1. I did not share my thoughts on what we should or shouldn’t do, nor what we should have or shouldn’t have done. Don’t presume to know my position. The truth is I don’t know what we should have done or should do now, but I know I’m not in a rush to get in a shooting war with another nuclear power without considering that we may not actually survive it. 2. Treating the battlefield like a playground cheapens the conflict and is disrespectful to those on the battlefield. 3. International conflict and diplomacy is not just playground bullying. The leaders of every single NATO nation including the United States have a responsibility to their own people first and foremost and it is not at all obvious how to deal with Putin. This isn’t the Sudetenland in 1938, nor Poland 1939; Poland actually had defense pacts which were not honored and was invaded by two of the most powerful countries in the world in a world that had not yet invented nuclear weapons nor ICBMs. This is Ukraine 2022 in a very different world with very different power dynamics, communications and much more destructive weapons technologies. There is a lot more at stake and to disregard that is foolishness.
- _0w8t 5y ago
  Ukraine repeatedly has being asking for strong air defense. This is their weakest stance against Russia that Russia now takes advantage to the full extend. Ukraine does not ask for soldiers.
codyb 5y ago
No one in NATO has been invaded, so… isn’t that pretty much the desired outcome for our military? It’s a damn shame what’s happening in Ukraine and I am certainly donating to relief efforts and rooting them on and feeling heartbroken watching the men go off to war but the idea we should put boots on the ground against Russia when our doctrine is still MAD seems nuts to me.
ethanbond 5y ago
This obviously has nothing to do with finances and everything to do with the fact that no one wants soldiers of two nuclear powers shooting guns at each other. This is the actual logic of nuclear weapons, and there is no going back to the world as it was before they existed.
- causi 5y ago
  It wouldn't be the first time two nuclear powers fought in a country bordering one of them. Chinese and American soldiers fought in Vietnam.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Russian and American military personnel (mainly, pilots in air-to-air combat) fought in North Korea, too.
  - actuator 5y ago
    India and Pakistan both have also fought wars with each other after getting nukes. Sadly, getting nukes seems to be the way out of costs of doing anything bad. Pakistan has waged guerilla warfare against its neighbours and got money from US while harboring their enemy, but can't do anything about it, because nukes.
- ledauphin 5y ago
  There definitely isn't any going back. But anyone who thinks the Cold War was somehow the "end of history", meaning that WW3 will never happen because it _couldn't_ happen, is clearly engaging in non-systematic thinking. If the rule is "nuclear powers must never fight", then the _only_ possible endgame is one nuclear power threatening all the others until they give up their nuclear weapons. Given that the US has never pursued this strategy, it seems fair to guess they won't in the future. It seems increasingly likely that Putin believes that no one will ever stand up to him. And even if the West doesn't, it's going to end very badly for Russia when China is the only major world power left to oppose him.
Workaccount2 5y ago
Preventing a direct America vs. Russia conflict is worth much more than $700B
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  Unless you're a d fence contractor.
avgcorrection 5y ago
Well the point of that budget isn’t to defend the weak. In this case though it is the right choice to make regardless since a Nato country can’t attack Russian forces without risking nuclear war.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
The USA is helping a lot, much more than Germany. Sending soldiers is not an option for obvious reasons - but everything else is.
bcrosby95 5y ago
There's not enough troops to prevent all the atrocities in the world. Morality ain't got 'nothin to do with it. Nevermind that more war means more suffering for everyone involved. The answer is way more complicated, and anyone on the internet that claims to know what to do is full of shit.
ROTMetro 5y ago
The weak that we encouraged to poke the bear and whom we promised to protect when we took away their biggest deternat (nukes). Here's current Presidential Press Secretary Jenn Psaki in 2014 defending a leaked State Department phone call deciding what people should have power in Ukraine https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-audio-reveals-embarrassing-u-s-exchange-on-ukraine-eu-idUSBREA1601G20140207 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-a... No matter your stand on if we should defend them, as American's we should feel ashamed of our encouraging Ukraine into this position without having their backs. If we didn't want to get involved we shouldn't have, you know, gotten involved.

by causi 5y ago

Seven hundred billion dollars a year and we can't even defend the weak unless it looks profitable on the balance sheet. Never have I been more ashamed to be American than I was yesterday.

unethical_ban 5y ago

I don't think money is the primary reason the US is holding off. Perhaps it's the population of the US not yet demanding intervention, maybe it's the idea that Russians and Americans openly shooting at each other means an actual continental war in Europe with nuclear powers.

systemvoltage 5y ago

causi 5y ago
Would defending Ukraine with US soldiers be good for the US? Absolutely not. The best outcome for the US is if Ukraine turns into a Vietnam for Russia for the next couple decades, with high casualties for the Russians and high casualties among Ukrainian civilians to keep the whole world strongly against Russia. That doesn't make it right, though. The right thing to do is to help other people even when it doesn't benefit you.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Let me refer you to Game Theory 101 by Professor William Spaniel on this very thing you're talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ryYvEOm4eA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ryYvEOm4eA
- octopoc 5y ago
  > The right thing to do is to help other people even when it doesn't benefit you. Why does it have to be the American men and women getting killed? Russia is never going to cross the ocean and attack us, and if they did they would never win. Why can't the EU defend itself? It ought to be strong enough. If the EU is sustainable it should be able to defend itself without outsourcing 95% of its defense to a foreign power across an ocean. I get that they were weak after WWII but for crying out loud they've had 70 years to recover from that. As an American, I am sick and tired of my nation getting involved in foreign wars because "it's the right thing to do."
  - causi 5y ago
    Ukraine is not in the EU.
    - SllX 5y ago
      If it expands beyond Ukraine any further westward it will be immediately NATO’s and the EU’s problem.
  - actuator 5y ago
    Oh, this is more on the European nations definitely. Outsourcing their defense to US and being so weak that they can't even do sanctions properly because they need to buy that sweet gas from them.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    The EU sat on it's thumbs while Milosevic ran another mass extermination campaign in europe until the US stepped in. They will never take a proactive stance on their own initiative.
actuator 5y ago
If we can't even defend weak from a bully, what's the point of anything; specially when they seem to be asking for help. There are much unjustified and unasked for interventions that have been done even in the recent past. Are all our morals and ideals just for convenience.
- SllX 5y ago
  This isn’t the goddamned playground with a bigger kid picking on a smaller kid. These are two nations at War and nobody has a defense pact or commitment with Ukraine because the concern was that making that pact would inevitably lead to a Russia-NATO war. Our morals and ideals are not universally shared by our adversaries, and our adversaries include two Nuclear powers with ICBMs. One of them is the instigator in this conflict. So yeah, it would be more than just a little inconvenient to get into a shooting war with the Russians because Europe realistically may not actually survive the conflict and our saving grace would be what, at least Russia didn’t either?
  - ROTMetro 5y ago
    Just for clarity, Ukraine pleaded for the defense pact, we refused it because the other side scared us too much. Sure seems like a playground bully. But yeah, stand by the 'we didn't get involved because then Russia would invade', wooh, that worked out well. I think the path you support is leading to a more unstable nuclear environment then if we would have been firm. But sure, it's just Czechoslovakia, I mean Ukraine they are after (never mind their actual words). And this doesn't destabilize the whole Taiwan China calculus (oh wait, it does). Yep, safer.
    - SllX 5y ago
      Three things: 1. I did not share my thoughts on what we should or shouldn’t do, nor what we should have or shouldn’t have done. Don’t presume to know my position. The truth is I don’t know what we should have done or should do now, but I know I’m not in a rush to get in a shooting war with another nuclear power without considering that we may not actually survive it. 2. Treating the battlefield like a playground cheapens the conflict and is disrespectful to those on the battlefield. 3. International conflict and diplomacy is not just playground bullying. The leaders of every single NATO nation including the United States have a responsibility to their own people first and foremost and it is not at all obvious how to deal with Putin. This isn’t the Sudetenland in 1938, nor Poland 1939; Poland actually had defense pacts which were not honored and was invaded by two of the most powerful countries in the world in a world that had not yet invented nuclear weapons nor ICBMs. This is Ukraine 2022 in a very different world with very different power dynamics, communications and much more destructive weapons technologies. There is a lot more at stake and to disregard that is foolishness.
_0w8t 5y ago
Ukraine repeatedly has being asking for strong air defense. This is their weakest stance against Russia that Russia now takes advantage to the full extend. Ukraine does not ask for soldiers.

codyb 5y ago

No one in NATO has been invaded, so… isn’t that pretty much the desired outcome for our military? It’s a damn shame what’s happening in Ukraine and I am certainly donating to relief efforts and rooting them on and feeling heartbroken watching the men go off to war but the idea we should put boots on the ground against Russia when our doctrine is still MAD seems nuts to me.

ethanbond 5y ago

This obviously has nothing to do with finances and everything to do with the fact that no one wants soldiers of two nuclear powers shooting guns at each other. This is the actual logic of nuclear weapons, and there is no going back to the world as it was before they existed.

causi 5y ago
It wouldn't be the first time two nuclear powers fought in a country bordering one of them. Chinese and American soldiers fought in Vietnam.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Russian and American military personnel (mainly, pilots in air-to-air combat) fought in North Korea, too.
- actuator 5y ago
  India and Pakistan both have also fought wars with each other after getting nukes. Sadly, getting nukes seems to be the way out of costs of doing anything bad. Pakistan has waged guerilla warfare against its neighbours and got money from US while harboring their enemy, but can't do anything about it, because nukes.
ledauphin 5y ago
There definitely isn't any going back. But anyone who thinks the Cold War was somehow the "end of history", meaning that WW3 will never happen because it _couldn't_ happen, is clearly engaging in non-systematic thinking. If the rule is "nuclear powers must never fight", then the _only_ possible endgame is one nuclear power threatening all the others until they give up their nuclear weapons. Given that the US has never pursued this strategy, it seems fair to guess they won't in the future. It seems increasingly likely that Putin believes that no one will ever stand up to him. And even if the West doesn't, it's going to end very badly for Russia when China is the only major world power left to oppose him.

Workaccount2 5y ago

Preventing a direct America vs. Russia conflict is worth much more than $700B

aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
Unless you're a d fence contractor.

avgcorrection 5y ago

Well the point of that budget isn’t to defend the weak. In this case though it is the right choice to make regardless since a Nato country can’t attack Russian forces without risking nuclear war.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

The USA is helping a lot, much more than Germany. Sending soldiers is not an option for obvious reasons - but everything else is.

bcrosby95 5y ago

There's not enough troops to prevent all the atrocities in the world. Morality ain't got 'nothin to do with it. Nevermind that more war means more suffering for everyone involved. The answer is way more complicated, and anyone on the internet that claims to know what to do is full of shit.

ROTMetro 5y ago

The weak that we encouraged to poke the bear and whom we promised to protect when we took away their biggest deternat (nukes). Here's current Presidential Press Secretary Jenn Psaki in 2014 defending a leaked State Department phone call deciding what people should have power in Ukraine https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-audio-reveals-embarrassing-u-s-exchange-on-ukraine-eu-idUSBREA1601G20140207 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-a... No matter your stand on if we should defend them, as American's we should feel ashamed of our encouraging Ukraine into this position without having their backs. If we didn't want to get involved we shouldn't have, you know, gotten involved.