3 ms·

Why spend money on healthcare when you can spend it on being able to annihilate any country on earth?

by ciconia 18d ago

sejje 18d ago
America spends more % of its GDP than France on healthcare.
- cogman10 18d ago
  For the most expensive population to insure (old people) in a much more inefficient manor (private coverage via medicare advantage).
- gverrilla 17d ago
  That probably shows how corrupt and inneficient USA is.
ARandomerDude 18d ago
At this point I would take filled potholes.
cogman10 18d ago
Even worse, Iran has shown how utterly pointless and ineffective these expensive weapons are. Cool, we have a weapon in space that cost $1B and 6 months to re-arm. That's not super helpful when who we are fighting is flying $20k lawnmower powered drones to take out all our bases in the region. We are basically the modern version of the Spanish Armada.
- drnick1 18d ago
  > Iran has shown how utterly pointless and ineffective these expensive weapons are. Make no mistake, the US has exercised incredible restraint when it comes to Iran. If it wanted to, they would be nothing left of Iran at all.
  - cogman10 18d ago
    Right, so we definitely have the ability to commit genocide, but we lack the ability to dismantle the government without being monsters. To actually do the hard thing that the trump admin wants, we need to send in boots on the ground. And even then, we've seen how totally ineffective that is with Iraq and Afghanistan. Gaza shows this as well. Even with the genocide that Israel is actively committing, Hamas remains. You cannot bomb your way into a change of government.
    - drnick1 18d ago
      [flagged]
    - bit38ds 17d ago
      [flagged]
    - toast0 17d ago
      > To actually do the hard thing that the trump admin wants, we need to send in boots on the ground. And even then, we've seen how totally ineffective that is with Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think the trump admin has communicated its war aims, so it's pretty hard to evaluate what sort of deployment would be most effective at achieving them. US/allied boots on the ground (as part of combined arms) are pretty effective at invasion. They're not so effective in counter insurgency / counter terrorism / asymmetric war. It's hard to win an asymmetric war with violence if you're the powerful party; the opposition tends to be highly committed and you'd need to capture or kill enough fighters to reduce their capacity to fight and avoid driving recruitment. Negotiations and diplomacy can bring these conflicts to a close, but that's not really the domain of the boots on the ground; certainly boots on the ground can help or hinder diplomacy, but finding an agreement on peace terms isn't their role.
      - cogman10 17d ago
        My assumption is they thought they could kill the supreme leader and get Venezuela 2.0 where Iran's next leader ends up being a puppet to the US. I doubt they thought this war would be going on this long. They tested the waters with Iran in June 2025 and since Iran was still willing to negotiate even after that strike, I think the Trump admin assumed they could go a lot further and get even more favorable negotiations. But it's true this hasn't been clearly communicated. I think, mainly, because it really wasn't well thought out.

Why spend money on healthcare when you can spend it on being able to annihilate any country on earth?

by ciconia 18d ago

Why spend money on healthcare when you can spend it on being able to annihilate any country on earth?

sejje 18d ago

America spends more % of its GDP than France on healthcare.

cogman10 18d ago
For the most expensive population to insure (old people) in a much more inefficient manor (private coverage via medicare advantage).
gverrilla 17d ago
That probably shows how corrupt and inneficient USA is.

ARandomerDude 18d ago

At this point I would take filled potholes.

cogman10 18d ago

Even worse, Iran has shown how utterly pointless and ineffective these expensive weapons are. Cool, we have a weapon in space that cost $1B and 6 months to re-arm. That's not super helpful when who we are fighting is flying $20k lawnmower powered drones to take out all our bases in the region. We are basically the modern version of the Spanish Armada.

drnick1 18d ago
> Iran has shown how utterly pointless and ineffective these expensive weapons are. Make no mistake, the US has exercised incredible restraint when it comes to Iran. If it wanted to, they would be nothing left of Iran at all.
- cogman10 18d ago
  Right, so we definitely have the ability to commit genocide, but we lack the ability to dismantle the government without being monsters. To actually do the hard thing that the trump admin wants, we need to send in boots on the ground. And even then, we've seen how totally ineffective that is with Iraq and Afghanistan. Gaza shows this as well. Even with the genocide that Israel is actively committing, Hamas remains. You cannot bomb your way into a change of government.
  - drnick1 18d ago
    [flagged]
  - bit38ds 17d ago
    [flagged]
  - toast0 17d ago
    > To actually do the hard thing that the trump admin wants, we need to send in boots on the ground. And even then, we've seen how totally ineffective that is with Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think the trump admin has communicated its war aims, so it's pretty hard to evaluate what sort of deployment would be most effective at achieving them. US/allied boots on the ground (as part of combined arms) are pretty effective at invasion. They're not so effective in counter insurgency / counter terrorism / asymmetric war. It's hard to win an asymmetric war with violence if you're the powerful party; the opposition tends to be highly committed and you'd need to capture or kill enough fighters to reduce their capacity to fight and avoid driving recruitment. Negotiations and diplomacy can bring these conflicts to a close, but that's not really the domain of the boots on the ground; certainly boots on the ground can help or hinder diplomacy, but finding an agreement on peace terms isn't their role.
    - cogman10 17d ago
      My assumption is they thought they could kill the supreme leader and get Venezuela 2.0 where Iran's next leader ends up being a puppet to the US. I doubt they thought this war would be going on this long. They tested the waters with Iran in June 2025 and since Iran was still willing to negotiate even after that strike, I think the Trump admin assumed they could go a lot further and get even more favorable negotiations. But it's true this hasn't been clearly communicated. I think, mainly, because it really wasn't well thought out.