It's not my take. It's the bean counters' take. They surely use justifications like that one to get involved at all.
JWBananas
joined 2 years ago
Not to mention all the homeless veterans too. It's a disgrace.
Have you considered that I agree with your take, and that I think this is the sort of callous justification that the bean counters use when making these sorts of decisions?
I agree with you. I'm not justifying being involved at all.
It's not an opinion that providing weapons is cheaper than providing soldiers. And it's certainly not an opinion about the merits of being involved in the first place.
Factually, if you're going to be involved, weapons are cheaper than boots. That's it. I don't like being involved at all.
I edited shortly after originally posting. I've noticed that sometimes edits don't federate correctly.
For anyone who is curious, please follow the link for the citation.
Edit: it was an edit, and also doesn't make your comment any less callous and disgusting.
The whole thing is callous and disgusting. They surely use analyses like the one I pointed out in making the justifications to do what they're doing.
Why does America need to cripple Russia?
They don't. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of that on their own.
There was a citation in the original post. The screenshot cut it off.
The total cost of the US post-9/11 wars is $8 trillion by 2050, approximately 1/3 of which will go to veteran care and the majority of which has not yet been paid.
Yes, 1/3 by 2050 is not most. My bad.
Yes, it will continue to rise after 2050.
The statement that funding another country's military is cheaper than putting boots on the ground isn't a hot take or even a position. It is objectively true.
I don't like war. I'm not cheering for war. I don't endorse the parent post's take about it being a proxy war (have you never contributed to a conversation while simultaneously suppressing the urge to ackchyually the other person?). And I do hope that humanitarian assistance is provided down the line by the parties involved.
Call it a proxy war, or don't. It doesn't make any difference to me what people want to label it. That doesn't change the objective truth about the cost difference. Either way, I would love more of my tax dollars to be steered away from war and toward the problems in my own country.
Why did you remove the rest of the post from the screenshot?
If I could wave a magic wand and end all wars and give the entire planet universal healthcare, I would.
All I pointed out was that 1/3 of the estimated $8 trillion total cost of the US wars post-9/11 will be dedicated to veteran healthcare; whereas funding another country's war doesn't come with those costs.
It's not a hot take. It's not a position. You're projecting.
Idk where you found the $13B figure, since that's less than the amount they made OVER the previous year's earnings.
I pulled this from your link:
Revenue
$611.3B
Net Income
$11,680,000,000
Yeah, what's up with that? Was that due to the lack of tanks or something? That can't end well long-term.