top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 174 points 3 years ago (37 children)

Show me a MAGA politician, and I’ll show you a person bought and sold by Russian interference.

  • source
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    And I will show you how the second and third world wars started by a dictator doing a land grab and fucktard leaders doing nothing when they had a chance. If Ukraine does not win, WW3 is the inevitable outcome in the next 10 years. These are the people that cause the deaths of millions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (31 replies)
    [–] 136 points 3 years ago*

    Putin's investment in U.S. conservatives pays off once again.

  • source
  • [–] 134 points 3 years ago (46 children)

    Everyone looking at the price tag vs the results knows a proxy war with a well-trained army, the side of the US and Ukraine, against formerly your biggest adversary is the least costly way to cripple your foe while hardly lifting a finger.

    ~$125 billion TOTAL, including humanitarian, in a sea of $800B+/yr is play money in war, and throwing Russia back with dollars is the largest blow to a man who thinks he’s militarily strong.

    It even makes China hesitate. I’d pay a lot more just for that.

  • source
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (10 children)

    Edit to add: This is a sad justification to be involved in ending human life, regardless of merit.


    It's especially peanuts when you consider that the VA won't have to take care of the veterans either. In the long-term, that's where most of the funding actually goes after you put boots on the ground.


    Edit to add:

    The costs of caring for post-9/11 war vets will reach between $2.2 and $2.5 trillion by 2050 — most of which has not yet been paid.

    Source:

    https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic/budget/veterans

    That is roughly 1/3 of the total estimated past/future costs of the wars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    And it provides your weapons industry with real life data from a large-scale conflict with equipment from multiple origins.

    And it advertises a competitors products as inferior, and yours as superior.

    I despise all these things, but from a purely economic viewpoint, this is interesting for business.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (14 children)

    proxy war: a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.

    Please don't call it a proxy war, because it's not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (12 replies)
    [–] 71 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    How are conservatives not widely declared as traitors? A few decades ago even the slightest hint you might be working for the Russians was enough to derail your career. But now it seems they can openly squash the best chance to disarm Russia, at a ridiculously low price, without sending troops. Why is the bar for them so low with everything?

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
    [–] 62 points 3 years ago (15 children)

    I wonder if it would happen with NATO partners as well. If the US elects another (or previous) moron, the partnership could end on a similar whim.

    Idk, I feel like the US not a very stable or trustworthy partner. Maybe Macron was right, maybe the EU does need it's own army.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Honestly strategically, it's stupid not to. But I sit here on my high horse, where we are used to sacrificing an enormous amount of tax dollars on military prowess and have the military wealth of like all nations combined. But hey we go bankrupt if we go to the doctors... so there is that.

    I guess my rambling point is it sounds good in theory, but it's a huge sacrifice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    Spending doesn't mean quality or even quantity.

    Americans get swindled big time by weapon manufacturers colluding with government contract drafters, and pharmaceutical companies colluding with medical insurance appraisers and hospitals to raise fictional treatment costs through the roof. All that, while having a taxation pressure pretty much on par with the average in the EU.

    So far, the EU has managed to avoid the medical racketeering, it isn't unthinkable that it could also avoid the weapons racketeering... unless it keeps buying overpriced shit from the US big bully in town, instead of investing in it's own manufacturing.

    An EU military, with weapons produced in the EU, would be a huge loss for the US, not necessarily much of a sacrifice for the EU.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    America never was a trustworthy partner. They start wars and raise dictatorships all over the world. Trump just showed they werent trustworthy in economical treaties either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago

    It's not all one thing or the other. People ascribe these kind of blanket generalizations to US foreign policy frequently but it's as short-sighted as painting German foreign policy as imperial. Certain US presidents have started wars. Others the Marshall plan, WTO, IMF, the UN, NATO, etc.

    Right now there's a crisis in the US driven by the same fear of change that drove them into containment during the cold war. That isolationist populism certainly benefits some narratives but it's no better than the worst elements of China-first economic coercion in the ACS that's alienated a lot of Philippine fishermen in recent years.

    Fact is the biggest threat to the human race is the dissension these isolationists/populists are selling. No meaningful action on climate, migration, or the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine can occur in that worldview and anyone should be suspicious of politicians who promote them.

    Most US policy has been quite good when non-isolationists have occupied the white house, just like most non-reich based German leadership has strengthened European unity. The Nazis and Trump's me-first exceptions prove the rule. Education, familiarity, and exposure should be the Rx for the US right now, along with all the countries dealing with the current wave of populist snake oil movements. In the words of a US propaganda film of the same name "don't be a sucker".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    You're not wrong. We have a very short policy lifespan. It's the major downside of term restrictions - nobody wants to or is able to plan for anything more than 2 years ahead reliably. Except the military budget of course, because we live in hell.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    The problem is that politics do not stop at the border. Support for Ukraine has become yet another culture war, us-vs-them battleground. It doesn't really matter what the issues are anymore, only that there has to be conflict over them to keep attention whores in the news cycle.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    Macron was right, but being right is extremely expensive. Meanwhile, the EU's dependence on F-35s for defence isn't too great given the well-known issues with F-35 maintenance and the need for US private contractors in the maintenance loop.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 58 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    This is a small stop gap, and we already know the Mega GOP are against supporting Ukraine. The US has a lot of support going to Ukraine, so this little gap isn't going to hurt them. The training for F-16 is already paid for so they is no stopping that, same with tanks. The good thing is the non-Mega GOPs are starting to distance themselves so hopefully that makes them more willing to compromise with the Democrats so things can get done. You know how the government was set up to work.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 27 points 3 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 13 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    How's this? If we don't support Ukraine, we also don't support Israel?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    I am all for supporting Ukraine, its so hard to see Ukrainians shit talk america here equating the opinions of a few loud MAGA conservative assholes to the feelings of america as a whole. Most of our people are with you and want to support you but our political and economic situation is very hard right now. Im ashamed that we aren't doing better during this critical time.

  • source
  • [–] [B] 6 points 3 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional supporters of Ukraine say they won’t give up after a bill to keep the federal government open excluded President Joe Biden’s request to provide more security assistance to the war-torn nation.

    Nearly half of House Republicans voted to strip $300 million from a defense spending bill to train Ukrainian soldiers and purchase weapons.

    Both the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the stopgap measure, with members of both parties abandoning the increased aid for Ukraine in favor of avoiding a costly government shutdown.

    The latest actions in Congress signal a gradual shift in the unwavering support that the United States has so far pledged Ukraine in its fight against Russia, and it is one of the clearest examples yet of the Republican Party’s movement toward a more isolationist stance.

    In a letter to congressional leaders dated Friday, Michael McCord, under secretary of defense, wrote that the department has exhausted nearly all the available security assistance.

    Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would like to send a clear message to the world about U.S. support for Ukraine by passing legislation, but believes the Pentagon has “enough draw-down money” to last through December.


    The original article contains 1,211 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›