Where did you get my desire for blood from? All I’m saying is that the same arms companies make weapons that fall in Gaza and that protect Europe. You can’t have one but not the other. It’s up to politicians to decide how to use those weapons, not engineers.
Why should we demand countries that are only spending 1/3 of what we spend disarm? No, let’s focus on having the most militaristic country in the world, the one that spends as much as the next 9 countries combined, on having that country reduce spending and stop trying to dominate the entire world through military force.
And then we can spend some of that money on giving me healthcare! Everybody wins! Well, except for the corporate executives, corrupt politicians, and their chauvanistic bootlickers.
You do realize that if you “reduce” spending you will still have arms companies making weapons and engineers will work for them? I don’t think it’s that complicated…
You spend a lot on weapons. If you reduce it you will spend less on weapons but you will buy some weapons.
Like imagine you’re spending $100 a week on alcohol. You decide it’s bad for you and you reduce it. Now you’re only spending $30 on alcohol. You’re still buying alcohol. You spend less but you still buy it so someone will still make it.
I have literally no idea what kind of point you think you’re making.
Yes, reducing spending would not completely eliminate the harm. It would only, you know, reduce it. Since you said you don’t like the idea of cutting it too much, I suggested a reasonable compromise of merely reducing it by 2/3, to be “only” the most well funded military on the planet.
To actually eliminate all the harm altogether would require either a complete shutdown of US military production or a fundamental shift in US foreign policy away from terrorism and domination, which would hopefully involve prosecuting the politicians responsible for current foreign policy for war crimes. Probably in some sort of revolutionary tribunal, because that’s about the only conceivable way for them to be brought to justice.
I’m not sure what part of that you’re confused about.
Where did you get my desire for blood from? All I’m saying is that the same arms companies make weapons that fall in Gaza and that protect Europe. You can’t have one but not the other. It’s up to politicians to decide how to use those weapons, not engineers.
Exactly how far does this extend? Because a lot of people involved in supporting the Nazi war effort said the exact same thing.
If you go around solving every problem you’re asked to with no concern for who’s asking or why, that’s how you wind up developing Zyklon B.
Giving a gun to a murderer is the same as pulling the trigger. Giving artillery to a murderer is too.
Great, so let’s disarm unilaterally. I’m sure Russia and China will do the same.
Such a childish take…
Why should we demand countries that are only spending 1/3 of what we spend disarm? No, let’s focus on having the most militaristic country in the world, the one that spends as much as the next 9 countries combined, on having that country reduce spending and stop trying to dominate the entire world through military force.
And then we can spend some of that money on giving me healthcare! Everybody wins! Well, except for the corporate executives, corrupt politicians, and their chauvanistic bootlickers.
You do realize that if you “reduce” spending you will still have arms companies making weapons and engineers will work for them? I don’t think it’s that complicated…
You spend a lot on weapons. If you reduce it you will spend less on weapons but you will buy some weapons.
Like imagine you’re spending $100 a week on alcohol. You decide it’s bad for you and you reduce it. Now you’re only spending $30 on alcohol. You’re still buying alcohol. You spend less but you still buy it so someone will still make it.
Hope that helps.
I have literally no idea what kind of point you think you’re making.
Yes, reducing spending would not completely eliminate the harm. It would only, you know, reduce it. Since you said you don’t like the idea of cutting it too much, I suggested a reasonable compromise of merely reducing it by 2/3, to be “only” the most well funded military on the planet.
To actually eliminate all the harm altogether would require either a complete shutdown of US military production or a fundamental shift in US foreign policy away from terrorism and domination, which would hopefully involve prosecuting the politicians responsible for current foreign policy for war crimes. Probably in some sort of revolutionary tribunal, because that’s about the only conceivable way for them to be brought to justice.
I’m not sure what part of that you’re confused about.
I can see that. Let me explain that in even simpler way.
You say:
Me: Making guns.
You: “Engineers making guns bad! Make less guns!”
Me: Make 1 gun instead of 3.
US Army: Take 1 gun and kill brown children.
You: “Engineers making guns bad!”
I say:
Me: Making guns.
US Army: Takes guns and kills brown people.
Me: Army bad!
P.S. I don’t work for arms company. I was just making a point.
The fewer guns they have the fewer brown people they’re able to kill. Obviously.
Obviously.