Most of which are armament that the US government already had in its arsenal. You've spent the money and now those missiles are actually in use instead of being hold in storage. I'm actually more interested in that 900 USD amount, where did you read or hear that exact number?

[–] Fuckass@hexbear.net 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Who said I preferred it killing people half way across the world instead of rotting in storage

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Missiles being used to kill people in an endless stalemate is actually worse than them sitting in a box
The people sending those missiles to Ukraine are going to buy more to replace them
They're also going to charge Ukraine for the missiles and insist the country sell off state assets for pennies on the dollar to make payments

[–] PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe it's high time to overhaul that thinking and stop having a ridiculous military budget.

[–] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Holy shit, it’s so high because it gets used constantly.

You’re literally here supporting the use of it

Liberal thinkers are epic

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't know how this brain genius talking point got so popular.

So things don't cost money when you already spent money on them? ...You don't think those stocks are going to be replenished having been depleted?

[–] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wonder why they never apply that logic to housing…

Then it suddenly costs money!

[–] PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because it has a point, albeit not perfect. Wouldn't you rather the US not have a ridiculously big military budget and can divert spending to, say, education and healthcare?

Sure, it's great that the US arsenal can obliterate any country in the world should the political powers will it, but this is not the best version of the world, honestly. As you said, it's your money. Are you okay with it?

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, it's great that the US arsenal can obliterate any country in the world should the political powers will it

visible-disgust

Wouldn't you rather the US not have a ridiculously big military budget and can divert spending to, say, education and healthcare?

Yes? But this seems like a non sequitur.

[–] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

You see, we will reduce our military budget by using more weapons. This makes sense in the liberal mind

[–] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And now we have to replenish those arsenals… they absolutely will be replenished.

Like, if you give all the food in your cupboard to someone, no one would consider that “free”. You have to buy more food!

This argument seems so foolish I can hardly believe anyone actually thinks this way.

[–] PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd rather the companies in my country stop selling those armaments to the US, actually. Maybe this is a good time to review your military budget and ask your government why you have it in the first place?

[–] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The same imperial government that lied to its people and provoked a land war in Europe?

The same one you’re legitimizing in fueling that conflict by implying it’s free?

Yeah let me call up my boy Biden and tell him no more bombs while you point and laugh at me from behind