4 ms·
I struggle to understand this type of comment. You can't respond to the bad guys with a plea for them to stop what they are doing because you would rather spen
by gwright 4y ago
I struggle to understand this type of comment.
You can't respond to the bad guys with a plea for them to stop what they are doing because you would rather spend the money on something else.
That isn't to say that battles should not be picked carefully, just that sometimes you don't have a choice and have to deal with a situation and spend lots of $$$ and sometimes blood in order to avoid a worse situation. Even in the context of "last 2 months alone" it isn't clear what specific action is being referenced so the comment is just too abstract, IMHO.
In some cases it makes sense to engage, in others it doesn't. There is no single correct answer unless you want to enter into a discussion of pacifism.
- prox 4y agoThat is not what that comment says. It clearly means money can be spent when we go to war, or when we need pandemic money, but a measly 25billion in comparison suddenly is “a lot”. If we want fusion, we have to invest.
- jessaustin 4y agoWe do have a choice about Ukraine, just as we had a choice about Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, etc. We are making the wrong choice now, just as we made the wrong choices before. Although we kill lots of people, many of them innocent rather than "bad", we never actually "avoid" worse situations. In cases like Libya our intervention has worsened human life by every measure. In other cases we might have delayed inevitable events somewhat (e.g. Vietnam couldn't go to war with China until it finished beating us). The "specific action" in every case is spending public funds, which is the purpose of the USA military, intelligence services, diplomatic corps, and news media, and has been since the Korean War. Insofar as they affect security at all, our military efforts usually reduce it.