You're viewing a single thread.
It's probably because sending old scraps to Ukraine doesn't make any money. Sending soldiers to die in Afghanistan was futile and guaranteed the production, sale, and shipment of more military tech/vehicles. Sending shit that was already made just costs money and doesn't fellate the military industrial complex.
It does though, the money earmarked for ukraine is mostly going to buy new stuff for us to replace the old stuff we give to ukraine.
The reason is just so obviously that trump is a russian asset and now so too is the republican party.
Not to mention that a Ukraine that survives the war relatively intact will then be familiar with NATO-standard equipment and not particularly likely to want to buy things from Russia
And will then join NATO as the 3rd, 4th, or 5th most combat prepared force. I’d assume they’d be behind the US and UK but in the mix of France, Germany, and Turkey.
Oh god keep going
Does it really cost money though? I would think that it's far more expensive to just store & maintain our massive pile of outdated equipment. I imagine the military would be relieved to finally get rid of their hundreds of shitty A-10s rather than constantly pay for their existence at least, it seems like it'd save a lot of money. hint hint
I mean I wouldn't wish using the A-10 upon anybody (eugh), especially Ukrainians. But it would be good for money
Don't forget the cost of disposal of expiring ammo, if not used on the range.
The idea that you think people in the Bush administration sent soldiers to Afghanistan to make money is insane, and shows me you have never worked in government or met anyone who has. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant Iraq, not Afghanistan (since the US was attacked and the whole world agreed on going into Afghanistan). But even for Iraq, no one is making calculations on what's good for the military industrial complex - they're guessing on if the cost of human life is worth the human lives saved and suffering prevented, and yes "spreading democracy". We can certainly mock it now, and talk about the WMD justification proving false, but the idea of going to war to somehow make money is insane. War is a net negative (look up broken window theory) and everyone in government knows it. The point of war is to change the global order, not pad pocketbooks, and effecting global change still would be the point even if it worked for making money - which it doesn't.
The idea that you think people in the Bush administration sent soldiers to Afghanistan to make money is insane, and shows me you have never worked in government or met anyone who has.
The fact that you think this is so insane shows that you have no idea how the actual finances of sovereign currency works. What'd it cost them? Numbers on the "debt" that's so astronomically high that it's a joke?
since the US was attacked and the whole world agreed on going into Afghanistan
Yeah, sounds like you "worked" too closely to this militarization. That's just blatantly false. Portions of the fucking US itself, the target of the attacks, still protested and was against going there.
War is a net negative (look up broken window theory) and everyone in government knows it.
Many huge corporations disagree, and profit off of this. Even in the early 2000s, while it was happening, Haliburton and Cheneys relationship were heavily criticized, because even if it's some "net" negative or positive, there are people that stand to make a lot of money off one side of that equation.
The point of war is to change the global order, not pad pocketbooks
There were large issues people took with many international conflicts being about money and companies lining pockets. Whether it's oil in the middle east, fruit in central America, or any of the others, there are many conflicts in the "global order" which have had huge impacts for the aggressor and their economy. If you want to try to justify each one, sure, but many points point to a trend.