4 ms·

I don't mean dropping in 68 billion dollars as a line item in some budget. I mean turning that money into some other useful resource, for example trained doctor

I don't mean dropping in 68 billion dollars as a line item in some budget. I mean turning that money into some other useful resource, for example trained doctors. If you assume that it costs 2 million dollars to train a single doctor, thats 34000 doctors you could theoretically add to the supply. Instead, we turn it into a bunch of dead, dismembered, and probably now deranged people, and free floating weapons that will inevitably end up in the hands of some future enemy. The fact that we can't currently efficiently turn money into useful results over here doesnt make me feel any better about turning that money into arms and handing them out like candy thousands of miles away. How do we know aren't going to be a few trillion poorer in 20 years leaving Ukraine the same way we left Afghanistan?

rocket_surgeron 4y ago
>How do we know aren't going to be a few trillion poorer in 20 years leaving Ukraine the same way we left Afghanistan? Because: 1. We aren’t “in” Ukraine so we can’t leave— they are fighting for themselves, and 2. It is unlikely they will give up and submit like the ANA because of their morale, which 3. Is evidenced by this POW, knowing he is about to be executed, saying “slava ukraine” milliseconds before having his brains blown out by Russian war criminals https://twitter.com/protasm19751/status/1632740245237030914 https://twitter.com/protasm19751/status/1632740245237030914
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  > We aren’t “in” Ukraine so we can’t leave— they are fighting for themselves Sure, we aren't (at least officially anyway, not yet) physically in Ukraine, but I don't see how that makes any difference for the question. Imagine I said "stopping funding" instead of "leaving." As for the rest, I don't doubt these people are beyond devoted to their cause, and I wish them all the best. However, I doubt our involvement on the whole is going to make anything better for anyone in the end other than the people manufacturing the arms. We certainly didn't end up making a difference for that POW in your link.

rocket_surgeron 4y ago

>How do we know aren't going to be a few trillion poorer in 20 years leaving Ukraine the same way we left Afghanistan? Because: 1. We aren’t “in” Ukraine so we can’t leave— they are fighting for themselves, and 2. It is unlikely they will give up and submit like the ANA because of their morale, which 3. Is evidenced by this POW, knowing he is about to be executed, saying “slava ukraine” milliseconds before having his brains blown out by Russian war criminals https://twitter.com/protasm19751/status/1632740245237030914 https://twitter.com/protasm19751/status/1632740245237030914

ifyoubuildit 4y ago
> We aren’t “in” Ukraine so we can’t leave— they are fighting for themselves Sure, we aren't (at least officially anyway, not yet) physically in Ukraine, but I don't see how that makes any difference for the question. Imagine I said "stopping funding" instead of "leaving." As for the rest, I don't doubt these people are beyond devoted to their cause, and I wish them all the best. However, I doubt our involvement on the whole is going to make anything better for anyone in the end other than the people manufacturing the arms. We certainly didn't end up making a difference for that POW in your link.