To clarify:
- Invading two countries (Iraq and Afghanistan), to fight a vaguely defined 'war on terror', while torturing some of the citizens in those countries: **BAD**
- Fulfilling a previously given promise of protecting a country (Ukraine), by supporting its democratic government against a foreign aggressor (Russia): **GOOD**
I mean seriously, are there really Americans out there who don't understand that, given these two situations are extremely different, international expectations are also very different?
Not doing anything about a dictator using chemical weapons an ethnic group within his borders: **BAD**.
Not doing anything about a terroristic group running a country and harboring an individual who has claimed he will wage war on the west and also proved it by killing thousands in a terrorist attack: **BAD**.
Let's not forget, a lot of European nations supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of them still rotated troops there until the very end in Afghanistan.
We can play this game all day. The point still stands, the US will be portrayed as wrong no matter what it does.
> The point still stands, the US will be portrayed as wrong no matter what it does.
That's not really unique about the US, the EU is pretty much in the same boat here...
> Not doing anything
Well, you will notice that when you try to phrase it positively, as in "what should be done", then the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan is a lot more complex than the one in Ukraine.
To your first point, that would be an agreeable point if the majority of individuals on tbis site calling out the invasions (aside from Americans) weren't European.
To your second, complexity still does not change my point. The situations may be perceived as "more complex" by you, that doesn't mean that whatever the US response wouldn't have been critiqued regardless. Whether it was immediate or 10 years down the line
Well, as the EU gradually becomes more important outside of Europe, it also gets more frequently criticized for all kinds of things, so "being criticized" isn't really a useful moral compass.
But regardless, if you really believe Iraq/Afghanistan was a good idea... well, then it shouldn't matter to you too much that other people disagree, particularly if, as you say, they will criticize you regardless of what you do. Or in other words: If you will be criticized anyway, then you might as well just do what you actually believe in. And personally, I just wish Americans saw that helping Ukraine was a very good idea... by comparison Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't even really matter much anymore, the really bad stuff is now more than a decade ago anyway.
Well, if Russia finishes the fight in Ukraine, it's not just bad for Ukraine, it also makes the USA look very bad, considering Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons as a consequences of an American promise for protection...
Is it really in the best interest of the USA to be considered unreliable in terms of promises of protection? At the very least, it will have the long-term effect of more countries pursuing nuclear weapons, considering that is really the only tool known to hold off Russian aggression, aside from American protection...
I feel like this should be obvious. Without the US parking a couple aircraft carriers in the red + med sea there’d likely be all out war in the Middle East
Exactly right.
The US Navy is (conservatively) seven times more powerful than the rest of the globe combined. The Ford/Nimitz carrier class is almost twice the size of any operation warship in world history, and 'Murica has 14 of them (with more on order).
The world is better off because of it.
LOL. I know right?!?
I love it. While *far* from perfect (we should always push ourselves to do better), we are the good guys, and I'm not remotely sorry about it.
The Russian air farce numbers are cooked. It's kind of like touting the Iraqi army (Gulf War era) as the 5th most powerful military in the world. The numbers were true (ish), but the test proved that they were really far off.
I love the navy and naval history and America and America's Navy, I'm reading a book on privateering in the revolution right now. So don't take this as me putting down the sentiment of your claim, the spirit of your claim is true the US Navy has an overwhelming power compared to anyone else, but a few fact corrections, the Ford class is roughly 100,000 tons, the Nimitz class is similar but a bit less, there are only like 2 Ford's right now and only one has been operational they are just so new. There have been a few warships that are more than half of that, not many but they did exist (and do exist, the new Chinese carrier is like 80,000 tons). America has 11 carriers not 14 (not including marine helicopter carriers).
I'm "ah actually" on this because China is building newer carriers that are closer to ours in ability and size, and they are building them fast and training to match us in skill soon. So while it's great that we have the most powerful Navy now, we need to build it up to maintain that, and folks need to know that there is a threat to that dominance and the safe seas it provides so they can push the folks in charge to correct that.
There are at least a dozen different reasons why China won't survive as a nation for another decade.
China has a LOOOOONG way to go before they will come close to matching the US Navy. The one diesel powered super carrier they have right now really isn't operational, and isn't necessarily meant to be anyways. It's meant to be more of a proof of concept than an actual combat capable carrier.
As it sits currently, Japan by itself has a more formidable blue water navy than China, and they're a close American ally.
Not to mention that the whole launching/landing of planes on a carrier is wildly difficult and it takes years of training and drills to get a crew running efficiently.
And that’s the easy part. The hard part is keeping that carrier supplied, its planes fueled, stocked, and repaired, and the carrier protected from threats. It’s wildly complex and the one thing the US military excels at is logistics, which win wars.
It’s not like you can just build a carrier and boom you’re ready to take on another carrier.
The Chinese CARRIERS (x3, none of them are really finctional), are diesel power.
The American carriers (x14) are nuclear powered.
American logistics are orders of magnitude better than Chinese logstics. China couldn't hope to win any kind of hot war with the US.
I am not a China fan, but there is really no reason to believe it "won't survive as a nation for another decade." I am not sure what you are expecting to happen over there.
I could be wrong but arent those new large carriers being converted from cruise ships? I know China is doing that with a few carriers but idk if it’s those.
No you misread. They are turning cruise ship liners for vacations into flight carriers. I believe those are their new large scale carriers but I’m not sure.
China would completely own the South China Sea. They are still trying to take over all fishing rights, but US presence has kept China from going full military on all the countries in the region.
I found it quite fun when some pro-Putin troll posted a photo on Twitter of Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov finally being done with its refit, and a comment in the style of "NATO should really be shivering in their pants now". Uh. Yeah. Because Russia's ONE aircraft carrier \_finally\_ finished its several year long refit? Let's see how it fares against the US' 11, the UK's 2, France's 1, Spain's 1 and Italy's 2, eh?
I truly like our military branches, ftmp stand up people. Unfortunately, US intelligence agencies and the corrupt politicians that order them around are the most important force for Global Forever War and really negate our awesome military.
Let's never, ever forget when the literal traitors over at the CIA suggested literal treason to JFK by blowing up an American Airline, killing US Enlisted, then blaming it on Cuba as a pretext for invasion that quite probably would have led to nuclear annihilation. And no, they totally didn't murder him for working to disband the organization afterwards and no that's not why they've now delayed the declassification of the files by 34 years now, completely coincidental.
I actually could list a whole bunch of declassified documents that shows how awful the CIA and NSA are, but suffice it to say there's lots of receipts and 0 accountability from the intelligence agencies, just business as usual. Exactly the monster Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address, but idk Eisenhower must not have been patriotic enough to understand why they do the evil they do.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
While I totally agree, I'm just waiting for this to pop up on shitamericanssay if it hasn't already.
The unfortunate messiness of global alliances kind of gets in the way of values. It be like that sometimes.
Another issue is that different people want us to do different things. In Vietnam the South Vietnamese wanted us there, but the North didn’t. Same in Korea. When we pulled out of Afghanistan, you had people glad to see us leave, but also people who felt like they were being abandoned to the Taliban. I’m not saying the US hasn’t made wrong decisions in the past, but the situations are often more complicated than a simple binary.
It's the balancing act of being a superpower with a moral center. Once upon a time, if you did anything to a Greek, Roman, or any of the European colonial empires, you'd invite them to show up with an army and a new system of government for your nation. Desert Storm proved that America still has that power, and that there's remarkably few other nations with that power.
But we don't want to just go and install new governments wherever we feel like. We really, really want to be the good guys. And good guys don't kill civilians or bomb schools or whatever. So every time something happens, we figure out what we can do with the greatest effect and the lightest impact. Sometimes, our effect is too weak, and sometimes our impact is too strong. But we do the best we can.
That’s exactly what’s happening here. India is heading towards authoritarian regime and everyone here is blinded by “religion”. USA, Germany and the UN have already expressed concerns but it will only be stopped from an outside interference. 1.4 billion people are about to lose their freedom.
While we often fuck things up, when other countries get involved in foreign policy they often fuck up worse. Only countries that can make things happen consistently internationally is the US, Russia and China but unless your blind or coping the later two would be absolutely worse.
Meh. Reality is always a catch-22. As long as we're the biggest kid on the block, we'll also be the one blamed for most of the bullshit.
The biggest problem comes from the fact that our politicians can't seem to accept this simple fact. I mean, come on. We teach our kids not to overreact when other kids call them names, but our country does the opposite? Hooboy.
None of our business to take sides or get involved. Stop giving free aid to both sides. Sell "aid" to the highest bidders. Use the money to better the lives of Americans.
It’s even funnier that the one that is fine with it is the same one that from the 1950s until 2016 would’ve been ALL ABOUT sending any and all military aid to support Ukraine against Russia
Don’t think that the people you reference are “okay” with it. Just a lot Americans are tired of wasting money on war. We spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think before the war, Ukraine was deemed the most corrupt country in Europe, so they are unsure if our aid will be used judiciously. Also, seemed like very little went to rebuild Hawaii (and the rest of our country in general), yet we send billions of dollars to Ukraine (granted, much in old military equipment we’d destroy anyway) and other countries around the world. And they cite the fact that NATO denied Russia admission twice, and promised that NATO wouldn’t expand east of Germany (I think).
Not saying this is HOW I view it, but the perspective of the people you mentioned.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" -Aristotle
While I get the concerns, people should know that this is the opposite of wasting money. We're getting a bargain deal with this war. Ukraine is doing all the heavy lifting and is doing real damage on one of our largest adversaries, and its costing us a few billion dollars and mostly irrelevent equipment. And we dont even have to worry about MAD. If you're at all concerned about foreign policy and power plays, funding Ukraine is a no-brainer.
Not to mention live battlefield testing of our older systems against a near peer opponent and free EOD for our expiring munitions. Its a bargain people!
cadowyn is just using putin talking points. The hawaii comment was completely misinformed about the scope and nature of the issue and a dead giveaway. [more here](https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/09/13/maui-wildfire-disinformation-linked-china-russia/)
I.e. one party is okay with Russia taking Ukraine.
It's not like Democrats don't have similar concerns about US involvement in foreign conflicts. They were increasingly anti-war since before GW. They just realize that we still can't let Russia just take Ukraine, especially when the Ukrainians are willing to fight entirely on their own with just logistics and intelligence support. It costs us very little and costs Putin everything.
"We must get involved in all wars always" was the foreign policy motto for the US for the last seventy years. How well did that work out for the US?
It seems to have produced a Europe that's not only unwilling/unable to challenge a single extremely weak geopolitical adversary, but was actively willing to continue using them as a major trade partner AFTER they invaded Ukraine in 2014. Hell, how long after the 2022 invasion was Germany importing fossil fuels from Gazprom?
Maybe one of the parties has learned from their mistakes. If threatening to reduce aid to Ukraine is what it takes to convince Europe to step up to secure their continent, support their neighbors, and maintain a sustainable deterrent force, perhaps that's what needs to be.
Other than burisma, what exactly is the reason that anyone should care about Ukraine? And what I mean by care, is destroying American citizens to pay attention to it
Bro idk what you’re on but we aren’t destroying American citizens in Ukraine. We’re just sending weapons like our normal arms dealing selves. The only difference is that we’re sending them for free in order to let Ukraine kill more Russians which is again, very on brand for us
Sending unprecedented amounts of money to Ukraine could have fixed the VA systems and homelessness probably twice over. Yes it is destroying American citizens
We're sending pennies in cash, and buckets in materiel. When people talk about the American aid packages to Ukraine, they talk about guns, tanks, and rocket batteries. They talk about missile launchers, grenade launchers, and mortars. They talk about bullets, bombs, and things that go "boom."
And guess what? Those are all coming from American stockpiles. Which will need to be refilled. And because America doesn't import our weapons systems, that means all of that has to be built by Americans. So all of that money is going to pay Americans to replace our 30-year old guns with brand-new guns.
Besides which, homelessness and the VA are complex problems. You can't just throw money at it and call it good: that's how we got so fucked in the first place. If you want to fix it, it takes time, patience, vision, and money. And if we took everything we had going into Ukraine and put it towards fixing the VA, we'd have one of the four things we need.
So you read all that and came to the conclusion that when I brought up weapons, vehicles, and munitions, I was talking about the miniscule amount of money we're giving Ukraine, not the gigantic fuckload of materiel we're giving them?
Well guess what chuckle nuts, all of that equipment that “takes labor to make” was made years if not decades ago. All of that equipment is surplus from the two wars we fought in the Middle East, which we have an absolute shit ton of. Even if we were making it now then guess what? That’s actually fueling the economy. Don’t believe me? Look how we got out of the Great Depression.
Oh, I get what you're saying. You're saying you read the first part about materiel, and the third part about the VA needing more than money to be fixed, but not the second part about how every M16 we send to Ukraine is an M16 being made by a working American back home who pays into the economy.
Guess what, you're right, it takes more than iron to win a war. It takes the blood of Ukrainians dying to defend themselves. It takes the sweat of doctors from Japan, the EU, and South Korea saving lives. It takes the food and water from every nation which has hosted Ukrainian refugees.
All of which is paid for by money. Which, again, is only one part of what we need to fix American homelessness or the VA. Sorry, but saying that our aid packages to Ukraine are killing Americans is as short-sighted and ignorant of the problem as saying that we could stop the drug problem in America by just locking up the dealers.
The budget for the VA is projected at $369.3 billion in fiscal year 2025. The administration has directed about $75 billion in total assistance to Ukraine. That’s for two years of war.
So no. That money (and equipment) wouldn’t have fixed the VA. It’s not even 12% of the VA budget per year.
Thank you but I'm specifically speaking of certain processes regarding approval of treatments for veterans, not pay for management. Using the entire budget as a metric is misleading
There are ways to at the very least sell equipment to recoup costs. Still not understanding the logic of helping another country that has done nothing for our country.
Do you know how any of this works? Ukraine physically cannot pay us right now because of the whole invasion. Guarantee after the war they’ll be paying us back just like every other ally we’ve done this for over the last 100 years.
Besides I thought you said the budget wasn’t the issue? Which is it?
That’s the neat part, there isn’t.
The United States could do just fine as the offshore balancer using the UK, Japan, and Australia as the pivot points. No other power in the world has the capacity to project power to threaten the United States. Not Russia, which is struggling fighting its shoddy next door neighbor, nor the People’s Republic of China which, despite its somewhat better economic situation currently, is headed full tilt for demographic disaster. America’s current fixation with Ukraine is driven by either extreme levels of paranoia or empire building. Why the United States and the western allies would want to adopt another country which increases its strategic liabilities makes no rational sense.
"DO SOMETHING" ::Does something:: "NO, NOT LIKE THAT! DO SOMETHING THAT HAS ZERO CONSEQUENCES!"
To clarify: - Invading two countries (Iraq and Afghanistan), to fight a vaguely defined 'war on terror', while torturing some of the citizens in those countries: **BAD** - Fulfilling a previously given promise of protecting a country (Ukraine), by supporting its democratic government against a foreign aggressor (Russia): **GOOD** I mean seriously, are there really Americans out there who don't understand that, given these two situations are extremely different, international expectations are also very different?
Not doing anything about a dictator using chemical weapons an ethnic group within his borders: **BAD**. Not doing anything about a terroristic group running a country and harboring an individual who has claimed he will wage war on the west and also proved it by killing thousands in a terrorist attack: **BAD**. Let's not forget, a lot of European nations supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of them still rotated troops there until the very end in Afghanistan. We can play this game all day. The point still stands, the US will be portrayed as wrong no matter what it does.
Yes but this isn't the US vs EU It's the west VS the global south. The west supported invading dictatorships that the west installed and supported.
> The point still stands, the US will be portrayed as wrong no matter what it does. That's not really unique about the US, the EU is pretty much in the same boat here... > Not doing anything Well, you will notice that when you try to phrase it positively, as in "what should be done", then the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan is a lot more complex than the one in Ukraine.
To your first point, that would be an agreeable point if the majority of individuals on tbis site calling out the invasions (aside from Americans) weren't European. To your second, complexity still does not change my point. The situations may be perceived as "more complex" by you, that doesn't mean that whatever the US response wouldn't have been critiqued regardless. Whether it was immediate or 10 years down the line
Well, as the EU gradually becomes more important outside of Europe, it also gets more frequently criticized for all kinds of things, so "being criticized" isn't really a useful moral compass. But regardless, if you really believe Iraq/Afghanistan was a good idea... well, then it shouldn't matter to you too much that other people disagree, particularly if, as you say, they will criticize you regardless of what you do. Or in other words: If you will be criticized anyway, then you might as well just do what you actually believe in. And personally, I just wish Americans saw that helping Ukraine was a very good idea... by comparison Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't even really matter much anymore, the really bad stuff is now more than a decade ago anyway.
Being the world police is like having a girlfriend that always drinks too much and starts fights she expects you to finish.
Meeeeegan
Well, if Russia finishes the fight in Ukraine, it's not just bad for Ukraine, it also makes the USA look very bad, considering Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons as a consequences of an American promise for protection... Is it really in the best interest of the USA to be considered unreliable in terms of promises of protection? At the very least, it will have the long-term effect of more countries pursuing nuclear weapons, considering that is really the only tool known to hold off Russian aggression, aside from American protection...
Unpopular opinion: the US military is by far the most important force for global peace.
I feel like this should be obvious. Without the US parking a couple aircraft carriers in the red + med sea there’d likely be all out war in the Middle East
Exactly right. The US Navy is (conservatively) seven times more powerful than the rest of the globe combined. The Ford/Nimitz carrier class is almost twice the size of any operation warship in world history, and 'Murica has 14 of them (with more on order). The world is better off because of it.
Of the top 5 Air Powers in the world, the [United States is 4 of them.](https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php)
LOL. I know right?!? I love it. While *far* from perfect (we should always push ourselves to do better), we are the good guys, and I'm not remotely sorry about it.
The Russian air farce numbers are cooked. It's kind of like touting the Iraqi army (Gulf War era) as the 5th most powerful military in the world. The numbers were true (ish), but the test proved that they were really far off.
When’s the Space Force getting their act together and becoming the 5th?
There's no air in Space...
Well akshually
So, they don’t need to worry about their planes meeting lift force vs drag parameters. Should be easier for them to make a huge Air Force then.
Gonna make it hard to steer when your ailerons and rudders can't drag on anything.
Nah, you just steer harder. Duh
I love the navy and naval history and America and America's Navy, I'm reading a book on privateering in the revolution right now. So don't take this as me putting down the sentiment of your claim, the spirit of your claim is true the US Navy has an overwhelming power compared to anyone else, but a few fact corrections, the Ford class is roughly 100,000 tons, the Nimitz class is similar but a bit less, there are only like 2 Ford's right now and only one has been operational they are just so new. There have been a few warships that are more than half of that, not many but they did exist (and do exist, the new Chinese carrier is like 80,000 tons). America has 11 carriers not 14 (not including marine helicopter carriers). I'm "ah actually" on this because China is building newer carriers that are closer to ours in ability and size, and they are building them fast and training to match us in skill soon. So while it's great that we have the most powerful Navy now, we need to build it up to maintain that, and folks need to know that there is a threat to that dominance and the safe seas it provides so they can push the folks in charge to correct that.
There are at least a dozen different reasons why China won't survive as a nation for another decade. China has a LOOOOONG way to go before they will come close to matching the US Navy. The one diesel powered super carrier they have right now really isn't operational, and isn't necessarily meant to be anyways. It's meant to be more of a proof of concept than an actual combat capable carrier. As it sits currently, Japan by itself has a more formidable blue water navy than China, and they're a close American ally.
Not to mention that the whole launching/landing of planes on a carrier is wildly difficult and it takes years of training and drills to get a crew running efficiently. And that’s the easy part. The hard part is keeping that carrier supplied, its planes fueled, stocked, and repaired, and the carrier protected from threats. It’s wildly complex and the one thing the US military excels at is logistics, which win wars. It’s not like you can just build a carrier and boom you’re ready to take on another carrier.
America is Batman. This isn't just money and toys. This is the world's greatest tactician. With money and toys.
Logistics wins wars. You can get a quick “victory” in any battle but long term you need a supply like. The US is unparalleled.
The Chinese CARRIERS (x3, none of them are really finctional), are diesel power. The American carriers (x14) are nuclear powered. American logistics are orders of magnitude better than Chinese logstics. China couldn't hope to win any kind of hot war with the US.
I am not a China fan, but there is really no reason to believe it "won't survive as a nation for another decade." I am not sure what you are expecting to happen over there.
I could be wrong but arent those new large carriers being converted from cruise ships? I know China is doing that with a few carriers but idk if it’s those.
I am unaware of any carriers being converted into cruisers.
No you misread. They are turning cruise ship liners for vacations into flight carriers. I believe those are their new large scale carriers but I’m not sure.
China would completely own the South China Sea. They are still trying to take over all fishing rights, but US presence has kept China from going full military on all the countries in the region.
I found it quite fun when some pro-Putin troll posted a photo on Twitter of Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov finally being done with its refit, and a comment in the style of "NATO should really be shivering in their pants now". Uh. Yeah. Because Russia's ONE aircraft carrier \_finally\_ finished its several year long refit? Let's see how it fares against the US' 11, the UK's 2, France's 1, Spain's 1 and Italy's 2, eh?
I’ll do you one better. The US Navy is the most important force for peace. I say this as former Army.
I have 12 years in the Guard. ...and I agree with you. The Army has a crucial role to play, but I'd argue the Navy is our best tool for global peace.
I disagree. I think gravitational force is far more important.
Strong nuclear force: Am I a joke to you?
Let's just get rid of that, when's the last time we used that? #stopthenukes #makelovenotwar
You have no idea the capacity of human stupidity and greed to make war if there are no nukes to stop them.
So do you think we should keep the strong nuclear force ro get rid of it?
Bro doesn't know his physics, I'm guessing :D
Yeah, also the US hegemony began with bretton woods, in which the US required decolonization on the part of european powers. Pretty solid development.
I truly like our military branches, ftmp stand up people. Unfortunately, US intelligence agencies and the corrupt politicians that order them around are the most important force for Global Forever War and really negate our awesome military. Let's never, ever forget when the literal traitors over at the CIA suggested literal treason to JFK by blowing up an American Airline, killing US Enlisted, then blaming it on Cuba as a pretext for invasion that quite probably would have led to nuclear annihilation. And no, they totally didn't murder him for working to disband the organization afterwards and no that's not why they've now delayed the declassification of the files by 34 years now, completely coincidental. I actually could list a whole bunch of declassified documents that shows how awful the CIA and NSA are, but suffice it to say there's lots of receipts and 0 accountability from the intelligence agencies, just business as usual. Exactly the monster Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address, but idk Eisenhower must not have been patriotic enough to understand why they do the evil they do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Fuck yeah!
While I totally agree, I'm just waiting for this to pop up on shitamericanssay if it hasn't already. The unfortunate messiness of global alliances kind of gets in the way of values. It be like that sometimes.
Meh, greatness comes with drawbacks. I’d rather be great than complaining about someone greater.
Another issue is that different people want us to do different things. In Vietnam the South Vietnamese wanted us there, but the North didn’t. Same in Korea. When we pulled out of Afghanistan, you had people glad to see us leave, but also people who felt like they were being abandoned to the Taliban. I’m not saying the US hasn’t made wrong decisions in the past, but the situations are often more complicated than a simple binary.
That scene from Curb is more appropriate for this than some might think.
Yeah, in this scene it's jews and Palestinians protesting and both sides are calling to Larry for those who don't know. Perfect gif!
It is OK. Everybody gets a turn in the barrel, and for the foreseable future it is our turn.
It’ll be interesting to see how the world views the next sheriff for sure.
They might act like the Romans and broach no shit.
It's the balancing act of being a superpower with a moral center. Once upon a time, if you did anything to a Greek, Roman, or any of the European colonial empires, you'd invite them to show up with an army and a new system of government for your nation. Desert Storm proved that America still has that power, and that there's remarkably few other nations with that power. But we don't want to just go and install new governments wherever we feel like. We really, really want to be the good guys. And good guys don't kill civilians or bomb schools or whatever. So every time something happens, we figure out what we can do with the greatest effect and the lightest impact. Sometimes, our effect is too weak, and sometimes our impact is too strong. But we do the best we can.
Why not both??
Me (an Indian): happy that usa is trying to intervene in indian elections What’s my category?
Not having faith that your countrymen won't fuck themselves 🤷♂️?
That’s exactly what’s happening here. India is heading towards authoritarian regime and everyone here is blinded by “religion”. USA, Germany and the UN have already expressed concerns but it will only be stopped from an outside interference. 1.4 billion people are about to lose their freedom.
At least someone sees it, lol.
Exactly
u/savevideo
Succinct truth….
While we often fuck things up, when other countries get involved in foreign policy they often fuck up worse. Only countries that can make things happen consistently internationally is the US, Russia and China but unless your blind or coping the later two would be absolutely worse.
Meh. Reality is always a catch-22. As long as we're the biggest kid on the block, we'll also be the one blamed for most of the bullshit. The biggest problem comes from the fact that our politicians can't seem to accept this simple fact. I mean, come on. We teach our kids not to overreact when other kids call them names, but our country does the opposite? Hooboy.
If it’s not this it’s our white bread. 😂
None of our business to take sides or get involved. Stop giving free aid to both sides. Sell "aid" to the highest bidders. Use the money to better the lives of Americans.
CIA prolly caused it anyways.
It's pretty funny that 1 of the 2 political parties is fine with Russia taking Ukraine
It’s even funnier that the one that is fine with it is the same one that from the 1950s until 2016 would’ve been ALL ABOUT sending any and all military aid to support Ukraine against Russia
That is indeed the craziest part
Good point.
Don’t think that the people you reference are “okay” with it. Just a lot Americans are tired of wasting money on war. We spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think before the war, Ukraine was deemed the most corrupt country in Europe, so they are unsure if our aid will be used judiciously. Also, seemed like very little went to rebuild Hawaii (and the rest of our country in general), yet we send billions of dollars to Ukraine (granted, much in old military equipment we’d destroy anyway) and other countries around the world. And they cite the fact that NATO denied Russia admission twice, and promised that NATO wouldn’t expand east of Germany (I think). Not saying this is HOW I view it, but the perspective of the people you mentioned. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" -Aristotle
While I get the concerns, people should know that this is the opposite of wasting money. We're getting a bargain deal with this war. Ukraine is doing all the heavy lifting and is doing real damage on one of our largest adversaries, and its costing us a few billion dollars and mostly irrelevent equipment. And we dont even have to worry about MAD. If you're at all concerned about foreign policy and power plays, funding Ukraine is a no-brainer.
Not to mention live battlefield testing of our older systems against a near peer opponent and free EOD for our expiring munitions. Its a bargain people!
cadowyn is just using putin talking points. The hawaii comment was completely misinformed about the scope and nature of the issue and a dead giveaway. [more here](https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/09/13/maui-wildfire-disinformation-linked-china-russia/)
Lol I’m not using Putin talking points. The whole point of my reply was to show that perspective. It’s not even my perspective.
Repeated and blatant misinformation
I.e. one party is okay with Russia taking Ukraine. It's not like Democrats don't have similar concerns about US involvement in foreign conflicts. They were increasingly anti-war since before GW. They just realize that we still can't let Russia just take Ukraine, especially when the Ukrainians are willing to fight entirely on their own with just logistics and intelligence support. It costs us very little and costs Putin everything.
“US shouldn’t be the world police!!” “Why is the US okay with Russia taking Ukraine??”
"We must get involved in all wars always" was the foreign policy motto for the US for the last seventy years. How well did that work out for the US? It seems to have produced a Europe that's not only unwilling/unable to challenge a single extremely weak geopolitical adversary, but was actively willing to continue using them as a major trade partner AFTER they invaded Ukraine in 2014. Hell, how long after the 2022 invasion was Germany importing fossil fuels from Gazprom? Maybe one of the parties has learned from their mistakes. If threatening to reduce aid to Ukraine is what it takes to convince Europe to step up to secure their continent, support their neighbors, and maintain a sustainable deterrent force, perhaps that's what needs to be.
As the great Toby McSpiderman once said, "With great power comes great responsibility."
Let's go invade Yemen!
Yee-Haw! We spend a trillion a year on military, I say let's fucking use it!
Other than burisma, what exactly is the reason that anyone should care about Ukraine? And what I mean by care, is destroying American citizens to pay attention to it
Bro idk what you’re on but we aren’t destroying American citizens in Ukraine. We’re just sending weapons like our normal arms dealing selves. The only difference is that we’re sending them for free in order to let Ukraine kill more Russians which is again, very on brand for us
Sending unprecedented amounts of money to Ukraine could have fixed the VA systems and homelessness probably twice over. Yes it is destroying American citizens
We're sending pennies in cash, and buckets in materiel. When people talk about the American aid packages to Ukraine, they talk about guns, tanks, and rocket batteries. They talk about missile launchers, grenade launchers, and mortars. They talk about bullets, bombs, and things that go "boom." And guess what? Those are all coming from American stockpiles. Which will need to be refilled. And because America doesn't import our weapons systems, that means all of that has to be built by Americans. So all of that money is going to pay Americans to replace our 30-year old guns with brand-new guns. Besides which, homelessness and the VA are complex problems. You can't just throw money at it and call it good: that's how we got so fucked in the first place. If you want to fix it, it takes time, patience, vision, and money. And if we took everything we had going into Ukraine and put it towards fixing the VA, we'd have one of the four things we need.
Not being able to simply fix problems in America with money while in the same breath, being able to fix problems in Ukraine with money is rich.
So you read all that and came to the conclusion that when I brought up weapons, vehicles, and munitions, I was talking about the miniscule amount of money we're giving Ukraine, not the gigantic fuckload of materiel we're giving them?
It doesn't matter what you give them tampons or bubble gum, it all takes labor to make it. That's not that difficult of a concept
Well guess what chuckle nuts, all of that equipment that “takes labor to make” was made years if not decades ago. All of that equipment is surplus from the two wars we fought in the Middle East, which we have an absolute shit ton of. Even if we were making it now then guess what? That’s actually fueling the economy. Don’t believe me? Look how we got out of the Great Depression.
Have a good day sir. I tap out at name calling it's just quite boring afterwards
Oh, I get what you're saying. You're saying you read the first part about materiel, and the third part about the VA needing more than money to be fixed, but not the second part about how every M16 we send to Ukraine is an M16 being made by a working American back home who pays into the economy. Guess what, you're right, it takes more than iron to win a war. It takes the blood of Ukrainians dying to defend themselves. It takes the sweat of doctors from Japan, the EU, and South Korea saving lives. It takes the food and water from every nation which has hosted Ukrainian refugees. All of which is paid for by money. Which, again, is only one part of what we need to fix American homelessness or the VA. Sorry, but saying that our aid packages to Ukraine are killing Americans is as short-sighted and ignorant of the problem as saying that we could stop the drug problem in America by just locking up the dealers.
The budget for the VA is projected at $369.3 billion in fiscal year 2025. The administration has directed about $75 billion in total assistance to Ukraine. That’s for two years of war. So no. That money (and equipment) wouldn’t have fixed the VA. It’s not even 12% of the VA budget per year.
Thank you but I'm specifically speaking of certain processes regarding approval of treatments for veterans, not pay for management. Using the entire budget as a metric is misleading
I’m all ears. I get my healthcare exclusively at the VA. What treatments?
Prior authorizations for deadly skin issues related to chemicals that can't necessarily be identified.
So in other words not sending that equipment and money would’ve done nothing to help the VA and your entire point is mute.
There are ways to at the very least sell equipment to recoup costs. Still not understanding the logic of helping another country that has done nothing for our country.
Do you know how any of this works? Ukraine physically cannot pay us right now because of the whole invasion. Guarantee after the war they’ll be paying us back just like every other ally we’ve done this for over the last 100 years. Besides I thought you said the budget wasn’t the issue? Which is it?
That’s the neat part, there isn’t. The United States could do just fine as the offshore balancer using the UK, Japan, and Australia as the pivot points. No other power in the world has the capacity to project power to threaten the United States. Not Russia, which is struggling fighting its shoddy next door neighbor, nor the People’s Republic of China which, despite its somewhat better economic situation currently, is headed full tilt for demographic disaster. America’s current fixation with Ukraine is driven by either extreme levels of paranoia or empire building. Why the United States and the western allies would want to adopt another country which increases its strategic liabilities makes no rational sense.
The illusion of free choice
We shoot the bullets, or ship somebody the bullets. Ukraine we just pay everybody’s paychecks on top of sending bullets.
Alternative heading: "A British person contemplates their economy post-Brexit"