The law ( the Leahy Law) requires that the US vet any foreign military receiving US arms. However, that doesn’t happen with Israel
The law ( the Leahy Law) requires that the US vet any foreign military receiving US arms. However, that doesn’t happen with Israel
MONEY. This isn’t fucking rocket science.
It kinda is, the US IS sending them rockets.
What money? From whom?
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries//summary?ind=q05&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&mem=Y
It always amazes me how cheap it is to buy politicians, as compared to how much spending they decide on.
I do think the EU should more heavily invest in bribing USA politicians, especially since it’s been legalized. The ROI just seems amazing.
And I wish that I was being sarcastic, but I’m not. EU pro democracy bribes and dark money pac’s could be a counter to authoritarian states their dark money/influence projects, helping out the embattled USA democracy. And when the USA fascists see that their pro democracy opponents are receiving as much/more money from slush funds, then they might be more open to the idea of making all bribery illegal again.
It’s funny when some of this corruption in the US is brought to light, you envision these huge sums of money, secret bank accounts, etc. Then it’s just some loser hiding 10k in gold bars under his bed or some shit.
Gateway tineout
US taxpayers.
…they already have that money
What are you talking about? There aren’t even enough munitions for Ukraine.
Anything we give away is something we could have sold to at least attempt to recoup American taxpayer investment.
I’m not sure why you people keep peddling the narrative that millions, or even billions of dollars in military equipment is worthless.
Sorry, that’s a lie. It’s because you don’t understand what’s happening in the world around you. Your comments are testaments to that fact.
I assure you the US can produce enough weapons to kill every man, woman, and child on this planet many times over.
I don’t think it’s worthless. I think it’s a good use of resources
Who pays for the added production? It’s like you’re arguing the US has more than enough with weapons it was going to replace anyways, then when that’s not actually enough you’re trying to make it seem like production is free, too.
I’m not understanding - is it your view that we cannot supply weapons because production is too costly?
Because that’s silly. The ROI is absurd here.