politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Because Israel paid for these bombs. Due to the war, Ukraine suffers from a serious lack of money. Therefore, they can't just buy the weapons they need. Instead, the US and other NATO countries provide them for free. To do so, Biden needs congressional approval. The only thing he can do on his own is to give arms manufacturers the permission to sell weapons, e.g. to Israel.
They're not actually free, they're being provided under bilateral aid agreements. If Ukraine survives the war it's going to be saddled with an enormous amount of debt.
The screw here is that countries giving can use the debt to fiddle their own books, making their economies look better than they really are (because they know Ukraine will never be able to pay it all back).
They won't be required to pay it back like that, that is a propaganda talking point.
What's your source for saying it's a propaganda talking point?
Here is my source for it all being bilateral aid: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/
Do you wish to challenge the definition of "bilateral"?
My goal here isn't to say that Ukraine shouldn't be funded - it absolutely should, and I believe doing so is essential to global security. My goal here is to call out the people who seek to exploit this war as an opportunity to sell more weapons and profit from death.
In that sense, many world leaders are in fact in league with Putin. Putin plays the bad guy, but they all profit, while general people and societies suffer.
But hey, they need to "thin the heard" in order to mitigate the other issues their ramptant exploitation is causing, such that they can continue to profit unabated. So I guess war is inevitable /s.
War is about making money, primarily from selling weapons. There are secondary objectives as well, but the real goal is always money.
Israel gets billions in 'aid', the American people paid for these bombs. The real reason is that Israel has a ridiculously effective lobby group in AIPAC where they control pretty much everyone in Congress. Ukraine doesn't have that.
...like this:
Pro-Israel groups target US lawmakers critical of Gaza war with attack ads
If Ukraine had just paid they're due they would get unwavering support no matter their intention, just like Israel.
Bad take from a bad country.
Only Congress can appropriate money, so the executive branch’s power is completely different in the “sell” vs “give” case
Makes sense, us peons shouldn't get a say.
We all elected these people. We have to accept some blame
Because ex soviet republics invaded, bombarded and blockaded by Russia famously have lots of spare cash.
Wasn't the entire global supply of grain dependent on safe passage from Ukraine? Weird how it's not a priority to the US unless there's a dollar sign attached.
What about some other NATO country? Don't they have some money to spare for Ukraine? Let them purchase it discount prices for Ukraine.
They do. In fact, Euro zone countries were the greatest direct financial contributor to Ukraine's 2023 budget by a large margin.. However running a war is much more than just dumping in money, as much of the financial support just goes to replacing income that was ultimately lost due to the war and it's depressing effect on their economy. Most of that 77+ billion euro can't necessarily go into purchasing weapons systems- and even if it did, 77 billion euro doesn't even go that far... Besides, the US by far has the largest military-industrial complex of any of the listed countries. There's a really good chance that most other countries simply don't have that much war materiel to dump into Ukraine compared to the US.
Yeah. During the intervention in Libya, our NATO allies ran out of precision munitions after less than a month of bombing.
The US is the only member of NATO which is ready enough and large enough to back Ukraine in the short-term.
Absolutely true. What I find puzzling is the hesitation to support Ukraine. If the US wants to pivot to Asia, it will need to ramp up its war industry. No better way to do that than to sell or give lots and lots of war materiel to Ukraine. A war for Taiwan and/or an expansion of war in the Middle East will require a huge build-up of industrial capacity to mass manufacture ammunition, missiles, computer components, tanks, trucks, artillery guns, combat aircraft, surface ships, and submarines, plus the primary industries needed to produce all of the raw materials required. Also, where are we going to get business and consumer products if we support Taiwan in a war with China?
If people give it more than a minute of thought, they'll realize that we are utterly unprepared to defend Taiwan. I'm not sure if NATO could even handle a war with Iran right now, but it would certainly be much easier if Russia were first defeated in Ukraine.
All that is to say that any pre-Trump iteration of the Republican Party would have jumped at the chance to help Ukraine as a way of reducing Russia, supporting the military industrial complex, and readying for great power competition. Apparently, the Republicans don't care about foreign affairs anymore.
Im not talking about weapon systems. If Adviivka was lost because they had to ration munitions like artillery shells, and Biden does not need congress approval to sell bombs at wholesale price, then why doesnt he sell it to some other NATO country that can give it to Ukraine.
Ukraine is purchasing the weapons though, they're being provided under bilateral aid agreements. As is typical with bilateral aid, the terms heavily favour the country giving, because the country receiving is desperate. The US is selling weapons to Ukraine at a premium, albeit in a long term loan, yet you're saying we should sell them at a reduced price.
I don't think you really know what you're talking about.
Im aware of how it has been done, apparently it isn't enough. So, why, if there really isn't a profit motive behind the ukraine war, doesn't some other country purchase the munitions required and gift it to ukraine? I dont think you can lend-lease munitions.
Denmark have literally just agreed to donate all of their weapons to Ukraine. I imagine they intend to resupply primarily through US infrastructure.
Why do you think that the US should sell to allies at a discount rather than sell to Ukraine for a massive uptick? Have you suddenly abandoned that position?
Are you just being argumentative for the sake of it? Are you completely full of shit??