No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Thought you meant "THE public" as in "the average joe", soz. What I'm not sure about is what you have an issue with. The money invested into arms replenishment is a boost to US jobs/the economy. Why the complaint that it's left the treasury? Because it could "go to something else"? Sure, anything could go to something else, but you'd have to prove that something else is actually more important/urgent. And I don't think there's anything more worthwhile currently than defeating Russia, the biggest antagonist to the West for decades.
Not to mention, the investment has been miniscule given the gravity of the situation, how much is "too much" for peace in Europe/World? There can be no prosperity without security.
Virtually every possible use of that money is "a boost to jobs/the economy." If they spent more on education, teachers would have more money to spend which would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money building trains, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money paying people to dig ditches and then fill the ditches back in, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. This talking point is complete nonsense and either ignorant or disingenuous. The arms industry is not particularly good for creating jobs/economic stimulus compared to spending the money on other things like education, you're trying to compare it to what, not spending it at all? That makes no sense.
That assumes that funding the conflict and building more bombs is necessary to bring about peace and security, which I personally disagree with, but my position on the matter is irrelevant, the original comment was just seeking to answer the question and describe what some people on the right believe. Regardless of whether it's true or not that the military aid is necessary for peace, many people don't agree with that assessment.
Sorry, made edits while you were responding. Covers some issues you have with it.
Well, I'm a leftist, so naturally I believe that using money on domestic spending to help people is preferable to spending money on bombs to kill people. That's like, most of what it means to be a leftist. I would like to think that this is the natural, base assumption, and that the argument in favor of military spending is the thing that has to be proven.
collapsed inline media
If you'd like, I could go on about the many, many domestic crises we're facing due to insufficient public funding, everything from healthcare to education to even basic infrastructure like bridges. Seems like a bit of a tangent though.
Ultimately, whichever position is "correct" doesn't really matter. If you don't address domestic problems then you're probably going to lose the election and then you don't get any say in what happens at all, which is, you know, what happened.
It's been like 80 years of unjustified conflicts that have consistently made the world a worse place before you can find any conflict where US bombs were actually used to improve anyone's life, including a twenty year long quagmire that we just got out of before this. Despite making things worse for everyone, pretty much every conflict whether it was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc were entered into with widespread popular support and they all had the exact same justification: that the other side was just like Hitler and they would keep expanding forever unless we got involved. It's a wonder to me that there's anyone who still believes in "benevolent interventionism."
Your arguments will require more nuance than "I'm leftist who thinks guns and killing is bad".
You don't think the world was better off after US intervention in WWII? Don't you think more lives would've been saved if the allies had been stronger sooner?
The defense of Ukraine is the most justified use of armament in a very long time.
As I said, that is the one, singular time in the last 80 years of war that military intervention benefitted anyone in any way. Every conflict is "the most justified use of armament in a very long time." Y'all just think you're special because you're living in the present and think everyone in the past was just dumb, it's hubris. Bush went into Afghanistan with like a 90% approval rating. There was near-universal agreement that the conflict was justified. 20 years later and millions dead, we have nothing whatsoever to show for it.
I was alive when that war started, and I was part of that 10% who never approved of Bush, and people accused me of being a terrorist sympathizer when I said I thought we should turn the other cheek. The same sort of people now call me a Russian bot or Putin shill for advocating diplomatic solutions now. But I was completely vindicated and they were all dead wrong.
It's funny that you can't help but turn to the WWII example even after I preempted it. It's because it's an easy, go to justification that you can just plop on to any war ever. If that's all it takes to get you to support a war, you would've supported Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Vietnam, and Korea. The historical record of "wars justified by pointing to WWII" is absolutely abysmal.
But sure, I'll grant that there are times when the use of force is justified, when you can make a clear argument as to how the average person will materially benefit from it. You can't do that with this war, except by plugging in the generic WWII line, which is bullshit now just as it always is. The reality is that quality of life is not very different between Ukraine and Russia, it's just a question of which group of capitalists gets to exploit people.
Again, I want to make the point that regardless of whether you agree or disagree, there are a lot of people who have soured on the idea of "benevolent interventionism" and on this conflict specifically. I'd also mention that I predicted Americans would eventually lost interest in the conflict and move on, as is happening now. We never had a real material stake in the conflict, Russia doesn't pose an existential threat, and Americans are easily excitable but have goldfish memories. Enthusiasm was always going to wane so unless the conflict was resolved quickly it was always going to result in a loss, and the only question was how long the meat grinder would have to keep running before people could accept it.
I'm impressed with how much you need to type to say absolutely nothing of substance. The comparison to WWII is there because it's the most apt, Putin even copy/pasted the same excuses Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia. So if you have a problem with the completely adequate comparison to WWII go complain to him or maybe just inform yourself on both conflicts. Otherwise your insinuation that this is no different from anyone else who was incorrect about their reasoning for war just ends up being empty garbage.
Americans at least had to get hit with 9/11 to go mad enough to start an unjustified war in Iraq, what's Russia's excuse?
"It's not an existential threat", do things need to become existential before you tend to them? What kind of brainlet argument is that?
Americans are losing interest in the defense of Ukraine because Russian propaganda is working its way through the smooth brains in the states. Nobody is surprised.
That isn't "what happened". What happened was the public got played by domestic and foreign propaganda + some sprinkles of misogyny and racism.
Bidens admin was one of the best in a long time and was infinitely more productive than the orangutan could ever dream of being.
But because Biden was too stubborn to not go for a second term, Kamala was placed in a shit position with only 3 months to build a campaign/image, and despite her situation she still performed insanely well because she's also infinitely more competent and intelligent than the orangutan currently in the white house.
Voters are so fucking dumb and uninformed, that the most googled thing in a bunch of states on election day was "did Biden drop out?" Then they decided to vote for the old orange criminal loser, who tried to steal the 2020 election and a few weeks before was ranting on TV like a senile grandpa about the Haitians "eating the cats and the dogs".