• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Our government breaking expensive contracts we didn’t need to sign up to a different more expensive deal we really don’t need, while failing to properly fund our domestic needs is so shit.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I have no idea what that means. The post was about military spending by Australia and Canada, I was pointing out the ridiculous overspending on military in Australia and the related international embarrassment of reneging on a signed deal in order to further increase that spending. It seemed relevant.

        • nuke@sh.itjust.worksM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Basically what atocci said. We love military spending here. We simp for the MIC. This is not a forum for political debate.

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            We love military spending here

            This is not a forum for political debate

            Which is it? A post about the moral value of political spending—whether it was negative towards military spending like this one, or if it were a hypothetical one in favour of spending more on the military—is inherently making a political statement, regardless of which way it was meant. You can hardly say there’s no room for political discussion in a post about one of the biggest things politics spends money on.

        • atocci@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Non Credible Defense is a military satire/shitposting sub. It’s relevant, it’s just the opposite of the usual shitposty takes here.

  • Beaver @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    We almost made it to 2%. Why is it so hard for the liberal government to tax the rich more to get there and properly support our soldiers and Ukraine.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    World’s largest arms dealer strongly encourages customers to spend more money on arms, particularly the kind only the US is capable of producing.

    • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      They could but that would mean getting a company to make a factory, get the resources and work force, and then make a quality product worth stockpiling. It’s cheaper to just buy ammo through the US…unless something non credible changed that

  • Breezy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Damnit… now i remember something i miss from reddit. Srgrafo comics were always a delight.

  • Turun@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    How standardized is the accounting anyway? Does the US Army Corps of engineers count as military spending? Because in most countries that budget would be categorized as civil infrastructure work and not be affiliated with the military in any way.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      A big chunk of the US military’s budget is on very expensive US healthcare. Something like 7% of the military’s annual budget is health expenses, and that doesn’t even include the Department of Veterans Affairs, which provides health care to veterans.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Who’s the one we like? Looks like they’ve got some kinda weird Alaska and Hawaii flag. Are they Hawaska? /s

  • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Now remember kids, Canada is responsible for half the Geneva convention. Do not trust Canada.

    • CptEnder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Weren’t these subs supposed to be made for the French but we fucked them over and sent the bid to Australia? Still kinda bummed about that, especially if the French deploy in Ukraine. They’re great allies.

      • Xerodin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        A little mixed up, there. The French were meant to have the contract to build nuclear powered subs for Australia, but the UK fucked the French by taking the contract, with some US help.

        The creation of the partnership spelled the end of a French–Australian submarine deal. On 17 September 2021, France recalled its ambassadors from Australia and the US; French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian called the partnership a “stab in the back”[10] following Australia’s cancellation of the deal worth €56 billion (A$90 billion) without notice,[11][12][13] ending recent efforts to develop a deeper strategic partnership between France and Australia.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS

    • mitchty@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The nerve! Did we send a strongly worded letter with pictures of teabags held hostage above a body of water until they get their shit together?