• Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It increases their approval rating with the military industrial complex lobbyists funding their campaigns, I’m sure.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. Wat is a very profitable business, and I’m sure Northrop and Raytheon would love some more revenue.

        • ares35@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          a fair chunk of the aid being sent to ukraine is already ending up in the pockets of defense contractors.

          • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They was a press release recently saying that almost all of the money is going to the MIC(military industrial complex) to replenish stocks for stuff given to Ukraine.

            Even the Canadian money is doing that. Like where Trudeau brokered a deal with South Korea to gift shells from the active stockpile to Ukraine, the money went to their MIC to make new shells for their stockpile.

    • jabrd [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Historically you have to campaign as being against the war but then promptly set about the business of creating a war once in office

        • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          unfortunately he was just stating US policy there - Obama infamously drone bombed a wedding. one of the things that makes him appealing to his base is that he takes these facts (or presumed facts in other cases) and says them straight up without hiding it behind sophistry.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, the way the US picks targets to murder is like algorithm moderated vibes. It’s really sick.

            Obama also liked double tapping ambulances. IE dropping a missile, waiting for first responders and neighbors to show up, then dropping another missile.

    • Madison_rogue@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, it doesn’t always happen. Look to 2016 as an example. One of the talking points of Trump’s campaign was that Clinton would lead the U.S. to war with Russia.

      Anecdotally, after the election, I was talking with a Trump voter who mentioned that Trump prevented us from going to war with Russia. Which fucking surprised me, considering conservatives are so fucking hawkish, and I did not know that idea was tossed around in conservative circles as a talking point.

      So no, many elections in the U.S. have been won by candidates that back isolationist policies (primarily WWI and WWII as an example). It’s all inherently political and can take a very populist tone.

      • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Before Trump they’d have loved war with Russia. It was them following the typical conservative “we all believe this now” rhetoric that changed that. Now Putin is a great example of an orthodox Christian and he’s doing great things for his country.