US's Republicans have been so afraid of '1984' that they took it as an instructions manual.

We have an authoritarian nation conducting a literal unprovoked invasion of a liberal democratic country, this entire thread is objecting to the United States STOPPING providing materiel to said country . . . and yet people still think defense contractors are the "bad guys."

It's morbidly fascinating, really. If there's anyone who could be accused of profiting from blood money in this instance, it's companies like Sukhoi and Kalashnikov Concern.

We have a border conflict on the other side of the planet that doesn’t involve America, except insofar as defense contractors are ginning up a campaign to have american taxpayers bankroll one side of that war.

And throwing around words like “liberal democracy” is just how the neocons get americans to turn their brains off and support such endeavors, as with the iraq war, and as with vietnam and korea before that. It actually doesn’t affect america whether other countries are liberal democracies or illegal democracies or something else, so long as they don’t attack america and keep terrorists who might attack america at bay.

RUSSIA invaded Ukraine. WE invaded Iraq. WE invaded Vietnam. WE invaded ̶K̶o̶r̶e̶a̶.

You're exposing yourself. Stop while you're behind.

editted after child replies

Iraq invaded Kuwait, our “ally.” South Korea, a democracy, was invaded by North Korea, a Soviet proxy state. South Vietnam, a democracy, was invaded by north vietnam, a Soviet proxy state.

It depends on which Iraq war they mean. Most people your age and under typically mean the second war, when the US did invade Iraq.

But yes, the first time it was Iraq that was the belligerent and invaded Kuwait.

You can’t disentangle the two like that. If you posit that the first gulf war was justified, you’re 90% of the way to justifying the second. The intelligence was that Iraq was rearming. If your position is that the U.S. would’ve had to intervene in the event Iraq invaded a neighbor again, then it doesn’t seem unreasonable to invade preemptively to avoid a potentially costlier conflict.

That's not the reason we used for invading, though.

This thread's corrections to my getting history wrong are just showing how disingenuous you are.

You’re the one who doesn’t know the history of mistaken american wars in the 20th century and I’m the one being disingenuous?

How do you distinguish Korea, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War from Ukraine? And I suppose your only quibble about the Iraq War is that we should’ve waited until Saddam invaded another neighbor, like he did the first time?

I admit when I'm wrong. You don't. That's one way you're being disingenuous.

The US did not invade Korea. Post WWII, Korea was split into its northern and southern zones which ended up becoming North and South Korea (the intent had been to make it one independent Korea, but put the USSR and USA in a room together and there will be no agreement on how to do that). In 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea. The UN called for a military response, the US supplied most of that response. But the US did not invade Korea.

North Korea invaded South Korea, the US and others fought them back on behalf of, and with, South Korea . China and the USSR supported North Korea, which is ultimately why it ended in a stalemate.

Sorry yeah i was wrong about Korea.

The present administration isn't really planning to cut military spending, they just want to redirect it. $4B of military aid was recently approved for another country.

Here's the budgetary outlook: You'll notice that defense spending is projected to have a slight increase in real terms, or a slight (0.1%) decrease in terms of fraction of GDP.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61172

Yep. DOD spending is likely to shift, but not be reduced. The major firms are probably going to see some contracts cut or tougher competition from the likes of Anduril in certain domains.

DOD spending in IT-related efforts may also shift, Palantir will be a major contender here.

What a reductionist cliche of a moral position.

Are you the mythical "ethical consumer under capitalism" I've heard so many legends about?

addendum: sibling comment's point is more relevant

Very well played!

https://www.abhafoundation.org/assets/books/html/1984/24.htm...