> not as much the people that they give money to.

The soldiers get basically no money. They risk their lives carrying around missiles that cost 5x their salary.

You’re saying we shouldn’t take it up with the tech companies and military tech vendors, which people here might actually have influence with.

A soldier is closer to a morally-neutral endpoint of your money, than a decision-maker that chooses to use violence or the threat of violence to achieve their objectives.

I'm not opposed to helping them, but I worry that they're helped disproportionately. In my opinion, kinetic warfare is not our weak spot - I feel like we've got that covered pretty well; information warfare is a complete blind spot from a defense standpoint. I'd like to see more money headed to defense on that front instead. Re >> "you need to take that up directly with the people that take your money and give it to them" - I do when I can.

The us military is a tool for economic imperialism, if they existed to protect individual freedom they might try and stop the Yemeni genocide or generally maybe not help overthrow democratically elected governments.